Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1DissentBrammer, Judge
¶30 I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ well-crafted opinion. By concluding the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in denying ValueOptions relief under ARCAP 9(a), they appear to misinterpret the trial court’s ruling. The majority has also effectively eliminated a trial court’s discretion to deny relief under that rule and, by determining it owes no deference to the trial court’s discretionary decision here, has substituted its judgment for the trial court’s. Further, I disagree with the majority’s interpretation of Rule 6(b).
Denial of ARCAP 9(a) Motion
¶ 31 I first address…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- State v. ChappleArizona Supreme Court · 1983
- Daou v. HarrisArizona Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. RamirezArizona Supreme Court · 1994
- City of Phoenix v. GeylerArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- Michelle La Nette Nunley v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.