Mulligan v. Grace
Decision Date | 10 May 1983 |
Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1,1 |
Citation | 136 Ariz. 483,666 P.2d 1092 |
Parties | E. Francis MULLIGAN and Gloria Mulligan, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Jack GRACE, County Attorney, and Coconino County Government, Defendants/Appellees. 6216. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This appeal is from the dismissal of the plaintiffs/appellants' second amended complaint on the ground it failed to state a claim since the defendant county attorney was immune from liability. We affirm.
Appellant E. Francis Mulligan was convicted in 1979 on arson and insurance fraud charges. The convictions and sentences were appealed and affirmed in State v. Mulligan, 126 Ariz. 210, 613 P.2d 1266 (1980). He was ordered to repay Coconino County the cost of his legal services. A writ of execution was subsequently obtained by Coconino County Attorney Jack Grace, and a lis pendens was recorded on appellants' property. The property was subsequently sold and the debt satisfied. On August 31, 1979, appellants filed their original complaint against Grace. An amended complaint was filed on June 12, 1980, and Grace thereupon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. The motion was granted, but appellants were permitted to file their second amended complaint on April 17, 1981, the caption of which reads: " Grace remained the only defendant who had been served and who ever appeared. He again moved to dismiss, the motion being granted on January 7, 1982. 1
The second amended complaint reads as follows:
"COMES NOW E. Francis Mulligan and Gloria Mulligan with their amended complaint before the Court.
That as so stated in the original complaint Jack Grace acting in behalf of Coconino County and under direct orders from Coconino County Government did violate Gloria Mulligan's and E. Francis Mulligan's rights by willfully and acting in bad faith remove from them their only vehicle under a Writ of Les (sic) Pendens. And, then still acting in bad faith did violate their rights by placing an illegal lien against their home. And, still with malide did violate their rights under the Constitution of the State and the Land by forcing Gloria Mulligan and her five children out of Coconino County for the purpose of insuring that E. Francis Mulligan would not return to publish his newspaper and practice his right under the Constitution, that of free speech, a direct violation of the first amendment.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Donahoe v. Arpaio
...Inc. v. State ex rel. Corbin, 138 Ariz. 200, 673 P.2d 944 (Ct.App.1983); Butz, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894;Mulligan v. Grace, 136 Ariz. 483, 666 P.2d 1092 (Ct.App.1983)).) 10. The foregoing analysis applies to Thomas's assertions that absolute immunity with respect to his actions related to......
-
Morgan v. Cochise Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors
...§ 12-820.01(A)(1) & (5) ); State v. Superior Court, 186 Ariz. 294, 921 P.2d 697, 700 (Ariz. App. 1996) ; Mulligan v. Grace , 136 Ariz. 483, 666 P.2d 1092, 1094 (Ariz. App. 1983) ; Challenge, Inc. v. Arizona, 138 Ariz. 200, 673 P.2d 944, 948 (Ariz. App. 1983) ).The Defendants’ assertion of a......
-
Hauser v. Smith
...Thus, the liability of the employer "depend[s] on the necessary finding of liability on the part of [his] agent." Mulligan v. Grace, 666 P.2d 1092, 1094 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). The Yavapai County deputies are county employees, and, as discussed above, the County Sheriff is responsible for Ya......
-
Johnson v. Brady
...of the La Paz County Defendants "would depend on the necessary finding of liability on the part of their agent." Mulligan v. Grace, 666 P.2d 1092, 1094 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). The only two possible agents of the La Paz County Defendants are Defendants Tony Rogers and Robin Puchek.4 Because t......