Floyd v. Superior Court In and For Cochise County, 2
| Decision Date | 10 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 610 P.2d 79,125 Ariz. 445 |
| Parties | Campbell FLOYD, Personal Representative of the Estate of Darryl Floyd, for and on behalf of Campbell Floyd and Lucy S. Floyd, surviving parents of Darryl Floyd, Deceased, Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Arizona, IN AND FOR COCHISE COUNTY and Lloyd C. Helm, Judge thereof, Respondents, and Cochise County Arizona, Real Party in Interest. 3563. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Petitioners have brought this special action to challenge the respondent court's transfer of their lawsuit from Cochise County to Santa Cruz County. Venue rulings are appropriately reviewable by special action, Campbell v. Deddens, 21 Ariz.App. 295, 518 P.2d 1012 (1974), therefore we assume jurisdiction and grant relief.
Petitioners filed a claim in Pima County for the wrongful death of their son against the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. During discovery, petitioners determined that Cochise County was a proper party/defendant and a complaint was filed against it in Cochise County. In order to consolidate the cases, a motion for change of venue was filed by petitioners on November 28, 1979, requesting the court to transfer the cause to Pima County where the original complaint had been filed. Discovery was proceeding and a trial date had been set. The respondent court granted the motion for change of venue on December 17, 1979, but instead of changing the venue to Pima County, ordered it changed to Santa Cruz County.
Appellate courts will not interfere with a venue ruling in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial court's discretion. Cohen v. Superior Court, 14 Ariz.App. 406, 484 P.2d 18 (1971). We believe the subject ruling requires our intervention. While conceding the petitioners' right to a change of venue under A.R.S. Sec. 12-408, the real party in interest maintains that the trial court was correct in concluding that Santa Cruz County was a more appropriate trial venue than Pima County since "the potential prejudice to Cochise County's position could be minimized by a more rurally oriented jury from Santa Cruz County." Even if we are to disregard the fact that Pima County itself contains many rural areas, we find the argument based upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maricopa County v. Barkley
...will not interfere with a venue ruling in the absence of a clear abuse of the trial court's discretion. Floyd v. Superior Court, Cochise County, 125 Ariz. 445, 610 P.2d 79 (1980). See, e.g., Slovenic National Benefit Society v. Ilija Dabevich, 30 Ariz. 294, 246 P. 765 (1926) (denial of moti......
-
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez
...adequately cure an erroneous venue ruling, such orders "are appropriately reviewable by special action." Floyd v. Superior Court, 125 Ariz. 445, 445, 610 P.2d 79, 79 (App.1980); accord Dunn v. Carruth, 162 Ariz. 478, 479, 784 P.2d 684, 685 (1989); Yuma County v. Keddie, 132 Ariz. 552, 553, ......
-
Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Lee
...by special action.’ " Yarbrough v. Montoya–Paez, 214 Ariz. 1, ¶ 1, 147 P.3d 755, 756 (App.2006), quoting Floyd v. Superior Court, 125 Ariz. 445, 445, 610 P.2d 79, 79 (App.1980) ; see also Ariz. R.P. Spec. Actions 1(a) (special-action review appropriate when no equally plain, speedy and adeq......
-
Zuckernick v. Roylston
...484, 556 P.2d 332 (1976). While it is true that appellate courts will not generally interfere with a venue ruling, Floyd v. Superior Court, 125 Ariz. 445, 610 P.2d 79 (1980), we believe the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction and therefore assume jurisdiction and grant relief. Petitioners......