Home Table of Contents

Rule 111. Publication of Opinions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals; Depublication

Arizona Revised Statutes AnnotatedRules of the Supreme Court of Arizona

Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated
Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona (Refs & Annos)
X. Opinions
A.R.S. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 111
Rule 111. Publication of Opinions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals; Depublication
Currentness
(a) Definitions.
1. An opinion is a written disposition of a matter which is intended for publication under (4) below.
2. A memorandum decision is a written disposition of a matter not intended for publication.
3. An order is any disposition of a matter before the court other than by opinion or memorandum decision.
4. Publication is the distribution of opinions for reporting by publishing companies in compliance with the provisions of A.R.S. §§ 12-107, 12-108, and 12-120.07.
(b) When disposition to be by opinion. Dispositions of matters before the court requiring a written decision shall be by written opinion when a majority of the judges acting determine that it:
1. Establishes, alters, modifies or clarifies a rule of law, or
2. Calls attention to a rule of law which appears to have been generally overlooked, or
3. Criticizes existing law, or
4. Involves a legal or factual issue of unique interest or substantial public importance, or
if the disposition of matter is accompanied by a separate concurring or dissenting expression, and the author of such separate expression desires that it be published, then the decision shall be by opinion.
(c) Dispositions as Precedent.
(1) Memorandum decisions of Arizona state courts are not precedential and such a decision may be cited only:
(A) to establish claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or law of the case;
(B) to assist the appellate court in deciding whether to issue a published opinion, grant a motion for reconsideration, or grant a petition for review; or
(C) for persuasive value, but only if it was issued on or after January 1, 2015; no opinion adequately addresses the issue before the court; and the citation is not to a depublished opinion or a depublished portion of an opinion.
(2) A citation must indicate if a decision is a memorandum decision.
(3) A party citing a memorandum decision must provide either a copy of the decision or a hyperlink to the decision where it may be obtained without charge.
(4) A party has no duty to cite a memorandum decision.
(d) Dispositions of Tribunals in Other Jurisdictions. A party may cite a decision of a tribunal in another jurisdiction, as permitted in that jurisdiction. Such a decision may be cited on a point of Arizona law only if it complies with Rule 111(c)(1)(C).
(e) Designation of Written Disposition. The written disposition of the case shall contain in the caption thereof the designation “Opinion,” “Memorandum Decision,” or “Order.”
(f) Publication of dissenting vote on denial of petition for review. If a Petition for Review is denied and a justice of the Supreme Court voted to grant review, such justice's dissenting vote shall be reported in the caption of the decision of the Court of Appeals, if such decision is published in accordance with these rules.
(g) Depublication. Notwithstanding Rule 111 (b), the Supreme Court may order that an opinion certified for publication by the Court of Appeals either not be published in its entirety or that a specified portion of the opinion not be published.
(h) Memorandum Decision.1 When the Court issuing a decision concludes that only a portion of that decision meets the criteria for publication as an opinion, the Court shall issue that portion of the decision as a published opinion and shall issue the remainder of the decision as a separate memorandum decision not intended for publication.
(i) Substitute Victim Information. All opinions, memorandum decisions, and orders shall use a victim identifier, as deemed appropriate by the court, in place of the victim's name in any case concerning a defendant charged with an offense listed in A.R.S. Title 13, chapters 14, 32, 35 or 35.1 or in which the victim was a juvenile at the time of the offense. This rule does not apply to victims who are deceased at the time of issuance of the opinion, memorandum decision, or order.
(j) The victim may waive the requirements of this rule by notifying the court in a writing that consents to the use or release of the victim's true full name in court records.

Credits

Amended June 27, 1989, effective Sept. 1, 1989; June 10, 1997, effective Jan. 1, 1998; Oct. 6, 1998, effective Dec. 1, 1998; Sept. 2, 2010, effective Jan. 1, 2011; Dec. 10, 2012, effective Sept. 1, 2013; Sept. 2, 2014, effective Jan. 1, 2015.
<Formerly Part IX. Redesignated as Part X January 15, 2003, Effective July 1, 2003.>

Editors' Notes

APPLICATION
<Applicable to all cases in which the petition, motion, brief, decision, paper, or transcript is filed or required to be filed on or after January 1, 1998.>
HISTORICAL NOTES
This rule reads the same as former rule 48 promulgated June 29, 1973, effective September 1, 1973, except for renumbering.
Revision of Part V of the Rules of the Supreme Court effective February 1, 1985, necessitated renumbering of rules contained in the subsequent parts. The order providing for abrogation of the rule insofar as applicable to civil appeals effective January 1, 1978, as an antedating order, specified abrogation of 48(a to d) from which Rule 111(a to d) was renumbered without amendment in the order of February 1, 1985.
Amendment of Rule 111 dated December 19, 1988, adding 111(f), 111(g) and 111(h), relating to publication of dissenting vote on denial of petition for review, depublication, and partial publication, was vacated by order dated July 20, 1989.
Supreme Court Order R-97-0001, dated October 1, 1997, relating to uniform citation, provides:
“The Court has considered the Amended Petition of the State Bar of Arizona proposing a system of uniform citation, and the comments submitted by the public. The Court is not opposed to the concept of such a system but first wants an opportunity to participate in the growing national discussion of this subject, in the hope of achieving some uniformity and consistency with other jurisdictions. The national movement is clearly still in the investigative and exploratory stages. The proposal for a system of uniform citation is therefore denied at this time.
“The Court has determined, however, that the adoption of the paragraph numbering aspect of the State Bar proposal is in the public interest, will promote competition, and should be instituted for all Arizona appellate decisions effective January 1, 1998. The Court's staff is hereby directed to prepare a rule governing citation to paragraph numbers for all cases decided on or after January 1, 1998.
“The Amended Petition by the State Bar of Arizona is hereby denied in part and granted in part.”

Footnotes

1
Subrule heading editorially supplied.
17A Pt. 2 A. R. S. Sup. Ct. Rules, Rule 111, AZ ST S CT Rule 111
The Code of Judicial Administration is current with amendments received through 3/1/20. All other state court rules are current with amendments received through 2/15/20.
End of Document© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.