THE ARIZONA COURTS SUMMARY REPORT
••
History, Structure and Operation
State Capitol Phoenix, Arizona J
Ji -
PUBLISHED ON BEHALF OF THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
JAMES DUKE CAMERON, Chief Justice FRED C. STRUCKMEYER, JR., Vice Chief Justice JACK D. H. HAYS, Associate Justice WILLIAM A. HOLOHAN, Associate Justice FRANK X. GORDON, JR., Associate Justice ... BY ·-.,,
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
NOEL K. DESSAINT Administrative Director of the Courts 'i."H r, '~ i~ · :,!'; r:·· '. ~;~:./'"
DECEMBER, 1977
\ " Arizon:a, S1Treme Cant±. Adro',nis±rnrtive Ditec±o sc_\,&'. HY1 ~~ THE ARIZONA COURTS SUMMARY REPORT
~,,,,,,._,, -- ... , E .,,.,,.... ,:~~~ \;n ('0 ''•• ~,q, i,, ~111\
I*,--- . ~r·,:,,-,, * 'I I I \ ~,..,,,.,~ IIW,l/1'1)/'rl,'1: ~,~ l ,, 7?. ~I •• ,,~b • \.'VI ,,~, OF t,.9- / 1'.\.''''"''~
History, Structure and Operation
ARIZONA DEPT. OF LIBRARY ARCHIVES & PWBLIC RECORDS SEP 1 6 1999 State Capitol Phoenix, Arizona
This publication was partially supported by Grant Number 76-149-0 II E-C(a) awarded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice.
~ IS O()tUMIHH 1$ l" HI ,ROl't:ATY I• 01 T .. [ MUMBlfl 66368·~- DEPARlMENT o, LIBRARYANDA8.CHJVES JAN ., 1978 - AA l ~ONA - ,.,c1,vo 1 Justices of the Supreme Court of Arizona. Seated: Fred C. Struckmeyer, Jr. , Vice Chief Justice; James Duke Cameron, Chief Justice; Jack D. H. Hays, Justice. Standing: William A. Holohan, Justice; Frank X. Gordon,.Jr., Justice.
/\ I
0 "'4.-r__J \ , cl -' ' , (I~: C ·;,-1?,., I r TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT . . . . 1
INTRODUCTIONS ...... 2
THE CONSTITUTION ...... 3 1910 ...... 3 MODERN COURTS AMENDMENT-1960 ...... 4 MERIT SELECTION-1974 ...... 5
THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ...... 6
CURRENT SUPREME COURT OPERATIONS AND PROCEDURES ...... 8 ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR ...... 9 CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT ...... 9
STATE JUDICAL EXPENDITURES ...... 10
SUPREME COURT STATISTICS ...... 10 CASE FILINGS-BY TYPE, 1952-1976 ...... 11 CASES TERMINATED, 1912-1976 ...... 12 SUMMARY CASE ACTIVITY, 1970-1976 ...... 13 CASE ACTIVITY-BY TYPE, 1970-1976 ...... 14-17
COURT OF APPEALS ...... 18
COURT OF APPEALS STATISTICS ...... 19 DIVISION 1-SUMMARY-CASE ACTIVITY, 1965-1976 . . 20 DIVISION 1-CASE ACTIVITY-BY TYPE, 1965-1976 .. 20-23 DIVISION 2-SUMMARY-CASE ACTIVITY, 1965-1976 . .. 24 DIVISION 2-CASE ACTIVITY-BY TYPE, 1965-1.976 .. 24 -26
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS ...... 27 TH E SUPERIOR COURT ...... 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
SUPERIOR COURT STATISTICS ...... 29 FILINGS, 1942-1964 ...... 30 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1965-1976 SUMMARY .. .. 31 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1976 SUMMARY ...... 32 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1975 SUMMARY ...... 33 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1974 SUMMARY ...... 34 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1973 SUMMARY ...... 35 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1972 SUMMARY ...... 36 STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY, 1965-1971 SUMMARY .... 37 APACHE COUNTY ...... 38-41 COCHISE COUNTY ...... 42-45 COCONINO COUNTY ...... 46-49 GILA COUNTY ...... 50-53 GRAHAM COUNTY ...... 54-57 GREENLEE COUNTY ...... 58-61 MARI COPA COUNTY ...... 62 -65 MOHAVE COUNTY ...... 66-69 NAVAJO COUNTY ...... 70-73 PIMA COUNTY ...... 74-77 PINAL COUNTY ...... 78-81 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ...... 82-85 YAVAPAI COUNTY ...... 86-89 YUMA COUNTY ...... 90-93
THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND MUNICIPAL COURTS . . . 94
COURTS OF NON-RECORD, STATISTICS ...... 95 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE STATISTICS ...... 95-97
APPENDICES APPENDIX I, SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ...... 98-103 APPENDIX II, COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES ...... 103-104 APPENDIX Ill, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTORS AND APPELLATE CLERKS ...... 105 APPENDIX IV, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ...... 105-107 APPENDIX V, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS ...... 108 APPENDIX VI, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONS ON APPELLATE AND TRIAL COURT APPOINTMENTS .... 108
STATE OF ARIZONA JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT SUPREME COURT Chief Justice* Vice Chief Justice* 3 Justices 6 Year Terms Ariz. Const., Art. VI, Sec. 3
COURT OF APPEALS 12 Judges - 6 Year Terms Division I - Phoenix Division II - Tucson Chief Judge* & 8 Judges Chief Judge* & 2 Judges 3 Departments (A, B & C) Presiding Judge* & 2 Judges Ea. Counties: Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Counties: Apache, Coconino, Pima, Pinal, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Santa Cruz Yavapai, Yuma
Ariz. Const., Art. VI, Sec. l; A.R.S. § 12-120
SUPERIOR COURT 73 Judges - 4 Year Terms Presiding Judge Each County** I-- Maricopa 35 Coconino 2 Navajo 2 I--- Pima 15 Yuma 3 Gila 2 Cochise 3 Pinal 3 One each : Apache, I. Yavapai 2 Mohave 2 Graham, Greenlee, Santa Cruz Ariz. Const., Art. VI, Sec. 10, 11
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE CITY MAGISTRATES 84 Judges - 84 Courts (Precincts) 4 Year Terms 90 Magistrates 70 Cities Maricopa 18 Coconino 5 Pima 5 Pinal 12 Navajo 5 Graham 2 City Charters, Apache 4 Yuma 6 Greenlee 3 A.R.S. 22-402, Yavapai 7 Gila 5 Santa Cruz 2 22-403 Cochise 6 Mohave 4
Ariz . Const., Art. VI, Sec. 32 * Elected by Their Members *'~ Appointed by the Supreme Court
Date: Nov. 16, 1977
1 INTRODUCTIONS
The following statistical and historical summary The quality of justice can never be measured by of the first 65 years of the Arizona Judiciary shows the number of cases decided by a court. In addi the steady increase in the work of the Arizona state tion, case statistics do not fully demonstrate the court system since statehood. The increase in cases complete work of the judges and supporting per reflects not only the State's spectacular increase in sonnel. We are, however, in an era in which the population but the increased complexity of our demands for information are great and the uses of society as compared to the simpler and less hur that information are many. Statistical data is neces ried life of the Arizona Territory. sary for managing, planning, budgeting and policy formulation. Such information is also necessary to Statistics, however, cannot adequately portray foster a better understanding of the work and func the people behind each case that is filed with the tions of the judicial branch of government. court. These statistics are but cold representations of the drama of a trial, the trauma of a sentence, or Important historical developments in the Arizona the joy of an adoption proceeding. Statistics that Judicial System have been emphasized here. An show a judicial system becoming more congested attempt has also been made to present the avail and delayed must be viewed in light of the human able statistical data reflecting the work and growth needs and desires behind each case. It is only of the courts. The statistics contained in this report then that we can appreciate the need for accurate are based upon information maintained at the Su information which will enable us to administer the preme Court and on reports received from the needs of today's courts and the people they serve Arizona courts. In some instances statistical infor and to plan for the future. mation was not available, or. was not considered sufficiently reliable for publication in this report. Because of time and personnel restraints, we The lack of uniformity in some of the statistics is were unable to present in this volume a complete a result of differences in maintaining or collecting statistical history of each county. Starting with the the information. Annual Report covering 1977, we hope to update each year the statistics for one or more counties. An analysis of the data contained in this report We should have a complete set of statistics for has not, for the most part, been made but the each of the State's 14 counties by 1984. report will serve as a basis for future comparisons and analyses. It will also be used as a base for fu Thanks are due to many people who helped pre ture annual reports. pare this Summary Report: the county clerks and court administrators who cooperated; William L. Since a statewide annual report has not been McDonald, Deputy Administrative Director of the published since 1963, Chief Justice Cameron has Courts; Mrs. Faye Jennings, Financial and Statistical directed the present Administrative Director to re Clerk for the Administrative Director's Office; Mrs. sume publication of an annual judicial report com Marjorie C. Manson, Secretary, for cheerfully typing mencing with 1977. Inasmuch as the Supreme Court the copy; Dr. John Goff, Professor of History at wishes to more accurately reflect the work of the Phoenix College and author of Arizona Territorial judicial system, pending case inventories have been Officials I, The Supreme Court Justices, 1863-1912 required at every level of the court system, in (1975), for his help in getting this project started; cluding the Supreme Court. These inventories are and Noel K. Dessaint, Administrative Director of to reflect as accurately as possible the number of the Courts of Arizona for completing the job. They pending cases throughout the system as of Decem are to be commended for the difficult job of gather ber 31, 1977. It is planned that future annual re ing and compiling the information presented here ports will present in timely fashion the work and in. Some of the information was difficult to find; growth of the Arizona Judiciary. some has been lost forever. What we have here This report presents a valuable picture of the his will at least be preserved for the future. tory of the Arizona courts, and can hopefully be utilized to assist in projecting future needs of the James Duke Cameron judiciary. I wish to publicly acknowledge the valu Chief Justice able assistance and diligent work of my entire staff in its preparation. Special thanks are extended to Professor John S. Goff of Phoenix College who con ducted much of the hisforical and biographical This report is intended to serve as a summary research. reference source on the historical development of the Arizona Judicial System from statehood through Noel K. Dessaint 1976. It was prepared at the request of the Arizona Administrative Director Supreme Court. of the Courts
2 THE CONSTITUTION
1910 were earlier nominated by their party primaries. At the outset a drawing by lot established the first In June of 1910 the Congress of the United States staggered terms of office on the Supreme Court passed an Enabling Act which allowed Arizona to bench, but afterward normally one term of office draft a proposed state constitution. Fifty-two dele expired every two years. The Chief Justice was the gates, elected by the voters, labored in the capitol justice having the shortest time to serve. building at Phoenix between October 10 and De cember 9, 1910, to create the fundamental charter. The Constitution specified a three member Su Ideas for incorporation into the Arizona Constitu preme Court and required a majority to form a tion were drawn from several already existing states quorum and pronounce a decision. The legislature as well as from the minds of the delegates. could increase or decrease the size of the Court but there could never be less than three justices. Without doubt the most controversial issue con Normal terms of office commenced and ended on sidered at the conclave was the recall of public the first Monday in January following a general elec officials, including judges. Although many objected, tion, but the Constitution also provided " ... judges especially to its application against judges, the fin so elected shall hold office until their successors ished document nevertheless allowed such remo are elected and qualify." vals. However, the Joint Resolution of Congress of August 21, 1911, required that the recall provi If for any reason a justice of the Supreme Court sions not apply to members of the judiciary and was disqualified, and that included illness or ab this was a condition precedent to admission as a sence from the state, the remaining justices choose State. Arizona entered the Union without the recall a superior court judge to sit in his absence. It was of judges, but soon after admission the Constitu specified that any judicial officer absent from the tion was amended to include the recall of judges. state for more than sixty consecutive days would, unless based on "extreme necessity," forfeit his of One of the most evident features of the Consti fice. The Governor could extend such a leave of tution of 1910 was its emphasis on elective offices. absence. Justices and superior court judges were This was no doubt a reaction to the territorial sys barred from holding any other public office during tem of appointive offices and is particularly ap the term for which they were elected. parent in the provisions regarding the judiciary. Except when the Governor was filling a vacancy, or staffing a newly created court, the voters directly elected the justices of the Supreme Court, judges Article VI, Section 4 of the original Constitution of the superior court and justices of the peace. set forth the Supreme Court's jurisdiction: The full term of office of Supreme Court justices was specified at six years and that of superior court "The Supreme Court shall have original juris judges at four years. Justices of the peace were to diction in habeas corpus, and qua warranto have terms provided by statute. and mandamus as to all State officers. It shall have appellate jurisdiction in all actions and proceedings, but its appellate jurisdiction shall Article VI, Section 13, read: not extend to civi I actions at law for recovery of money or personal property where the orig "No person shall be eligible for the office of inal amount in controversy, or the value of the judge of the Supreme Court, unless he shall property, does not exceed the sum of two hun be learned in the law, at least thirty years of dred dollars, unless the action involves the age, and shall have been a judge of, or ad validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, mu mitted to practice before, the highest court in nicipal fine, or statute. Arizona for at least five years, and shall have been a resident of Arizona for five years .next "The Supreme Court shall also have power to preceding his election. issue writs of mandamus, review, prohibition, habeas corpus, certiorari, and all other writs "No person shall be eligible for the office of necessary and proper to the complete exercise judge of the superior court, unless he shall be of its appellate and revisory jurisdiction. learned in the law, at least twenty-five years of age, and shall have been admitted to prac tice before the highest court of Arizona for "The Supreme Court shall have original and at least two years and shall have been a resi exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine dent of Arizona for two years next preceding all causes between counties concerning dis his election." puted boundaries and surveys thereof, or con cerning claims of one county against another. Justices and judges were chosen in the general Such trials shall be to the court without a elections on a non-partisan basis although they jury.
3 "Each judge of the Supreme Court shall have " . shall not trench upon the jurisdiction of power to issue writs of habeas corpus to any any court of record, except that said justices part of the State upon petition by, or on be shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the su half of, any person held in actual custody, and perior court in cases of forcible entry and de may make such writs returnable before himself, tainer, where the rental value does not exceed or before the Supreme Court, or before any twenty-five dollars per month, and where the superior court of the State or any judge there whole amount of damage claimed does not of." exceed two hundred dollars; and provided that justices of the peace may be made police The Constitution of 1910 provided for one su justices of incorporated cities and towns. Pro perior court judge in each county plus an additional secution may be instituted in courts other than judge as provided for by law for each additional courts of record upon sworn complaint." Ar thirty thousand inhabitants or majority fraction ticle VI, Section 9. thereof. Their salaries, specified in the charter, were The legislature in an act signed by the Governor, to be paid half by the state and half by the county. June 8, 1912, declared that the justice of the peace Initially those sums were $3,000, $3,500 or $4,000 courts had jurisdiction in all civil actions where the depending upon the county in which they served. amount involved, exclusive of interest and costs, The superior courts were courts of record. was less than two hundred dollars and in criminal The jurisdiction of the superior court was over cases other than felonies where punishment was a all matters of equity, any case involving title to or fine of less than two hundred dollars, where there possession to real estate, anything pertaining to was a term in the county jail not exceeding three the validity of a tax, all other cases wherein the months, or both. [Laws 1912 (Special Session), controversy amounted to at least two hundred Chapter 8]. dollars " ... and in all criminal cases amounting to felony, and in all cases of misdemeanor not otherwise provided for by law.... " Additionally, MODERN COURTS AMENDMENT -1960 the superior court had jurisdiction over probate, The voters of Arizona, in November 1960, ap divorce, annulment and matters involving juveniles. proved what was generally known as the "Modern Reflecting the then current interest in the welfare Courts Amendment" to the State Constitution and of the young, the Constitution provided: as a result greatly changed the operations of the "The superior court shall have exclusive orig Arizona Supreme Court. By this action Article VI inal jurisdiction in all proceedings and matters of the fundamental charter was rewritten. The judi affecting dependent, neglected, incorrigible, or cial power of the state was henceforth declared delinquent children, or children accused of to be vested in: crime, under the age of eighteen years. The judges of said courts must hold examinations " ... an integrated judicial department consist in chambers of all such children concerning ing of a Supreme Court, such intermediate whom proceedings are brought, in advance of appellate courts as may be provided by law, any criminal prosecution of such children, and a superior court, such courts inferior to the shall have the power, in their discretion, to superior court as may be provided by law, and suspend criminal prosecution for any offenses justice courts." Article VI, Section 1. that may have been committed by such chil The constitutionally mandated minimum number dren. The powers of said judges to control of Supreme Court justices was placed at five, al such children shall be as prescribed by law." Article VI, Section 6. though that number could be increased by the legislature. It was further provided that the Court Superior court judges were given powers to issue could sit and decide cases in bane with the full the various extraordinary writs and exclusive power membership participating, or in division of not less to summon grand juries. Although the original Con than three jurists. A law could only be declared un stitution did not specifically declare that there was constitutional by the Court in bane. The Chief Jus only one superior court for the state, with several tice was empowered to assign a superior court judges, it did declare that: "The judgments, de judge (and later after its creation, a judge of the crees, orders, and proceedings of any session of court of appeals) active or retired, to temporarily the superior court held by any one or more of the serve on the Supreme Court sitting either in bane judges of such court shall be equally effectual as or in division. if all the judges of said court had presided at such session." Article VI, Section 5. Eliminating any possible doubt as to whether or not the Arizona court system was fully inte The Constitution generally left matters regarding grated, the 1960 amendment specifically vests ad justice of the peace courts to legislative enact ministrative supervision over all courts of the state ments, but it did provide in addition to the fact in the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice, or in his that they were not courts of record that such juris absence, the Vice-Chief Justice, shall exercise the diction: Court's administrative supervision. Both the Chief
4 Justice and Vice-Chief Justice are elected by their but to date none have chosen to do so. The nom colleagues. Included in the administrative powers inating commissions are the heart of the merit of the high tribunal is the authority to assign judges selection system. There are currently three com to serve in other courts or counties. The Supreme missions, one each for Maricopa and Pima Counties Court has general appellate jurisdiction over all and one for all of the appellate judges and jus actions and proceedings except those originating tices. Each commission has nine members. Five in courts not of rcord. In the latter instance an non-lawyer members· are selected by the Governor appeal can be heard if the action involves the and three attorney members are chosen by the validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, statute State Bar; all are then nominated by the Governor or municipal ordinance. In other matters no sub and must be confirmed by the Senate. Each com stantial changes were made except that the Su mission is presided over by the Chief Justice of preme Court was empowered to make rules relative the Supreme Court, who is the ninth member, but to procedural matters for any court. he votes only in the case of a tie. No more than three of the non-lawyers and two of the lawyers may be of the same political party. All members of the commissions serve four year staggered terms. MERIT SELECTION - 1974 When a vacancy occurs on a particular court, a call for nominations and applications is made. Be In the latter part of 1967, Chief Justice Charles C. fore the announced closing date individuals inter Bernstein and Governor Jack Williams called a ested in judgeships may make application, be put citizens' conference on Arizona courts. As a result forward for consideration by another, or be ap of that meeting an organization known as the Citi proached by members of the commission. zen's Association on Arizona Courts was formed. After deliberation this group, with B. V. "Sturdy" Sturdivant as it's president, recommended reor In consideration of potential nominees the com ganization of the lower courts, creation of a com missions are mindful of the constitutional require mission on judicial qualifications, increases in judi ments for the posts of justice and judge. A mem cial salaries, and a revision of the system of select ber of the Arizona Supreme Court must be of good ing judges. With the assistance of the League of moral character, admitted to the practice of law Women Voters, the Arizona Jaycees, the Arizona in and a resident of Arizona for at least ten years Judges' Association, and the State Bar, the Citizen's prior to taking office. A judge of the court of ap Association proposed an initiative measure to peals or superior court must be at least thirty years amend the State Constitution so as to achieve merit of age, of good moral character, admitted to the selection of judges. In 1974 the voters approved practice of law in and a resident of Arizona for at the measure 253,756 to 217,709 and the new pro least five years prior to taking office. Arizona Const., cedures went into effect in December of that year. Artcle VI, Sections 6 and 22.
With regard to the superior courts there was a general feeling that in counties with a relatively small population, the voters could adequately pass The nominating comm1ss1ons utilize question on the qualifications of those who would serve naries, conduct personal interviews and make fur them as judge. In the less populated counties the ther inquiries about prospective nominees as they opportunities for the public to know the judge or deem necessary. The numbers of those being con the candidate were deemed significant. There were sidered for an opening is narrowed by the use of also strong feelings in favor of elected trial judges. the secret ballot. After a complete discussion of all However, in the state's population centers, Mari germane matters, further voting may narrow the copa and Pima Counties, the conditions prevalent list of possible choices to three. The Constitution in the rural counties did not generally exist. In addi requires the naming of at least three nominees, but tion, the elective system was not entirely function as many as six have been recommended to the ing. Between 1912 and 1974 more than half of the Governor for one position. If three or four are judges of courts of record were first appointed to nominated, not more than two can be from the office by the Governor and nearly 70 percent of same political party; if more than four are nomin those serving in 1974 owed their original selection ated, not more than 60 percent can be from the to an appointment. same party. Should the commission fail to submit names to the Governor within 60 days after the vacancy occurs, the Governor may appoint any The Constitution now mandates merit selection qualified person to fill the vacancy. Should the of judges for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Governor fail to appoint one of the commission's and for those superior courts in counties with a nominees within 60 days after the names are sub population of 150,000 or more. Other counties may mitted to him, the Chief Justice shall make the ap select their superior court judges in this fashion, pointment.
5 Once a person has been named to office, Article over again. A justice or a judge may continue to VI, Section 37 of the Constitution specifies that serve by winning periodic approval from the voters "each justice or judge so appointed shall initially until he or she reaches 70 years of age at which hold office for a term ending sixty days following time the Constitution requires mandatory retire the next regular general election after expiration of ment. a term of two years in office." At the election the voters indicate "yes" or "no" on the issue of re The Constitution now also provides that jus taining the judge or justice. If retained the jurist tices and judges of the courts of record are not serves either a full six or four year term, depend eligible for any other public office or public em ing on which court he serves, before facing the ployment during their term of office. They cannot same election-retention process again. Should the practice law or hold office in any political party. majority of votes cast be against retaining the judge, Further, they may not campaign in'an election other the office is vacated upon expiration of the term than their own. The penalty specified for any viola and the appropriate commission begins its task tion of these rules is forfeiture of office.
THE SUPREM E COURT JUSTICES
When statehood appeared imminent in 1911, to the new State Supreme Court. The justices then elections were held to provide the first slate of commenced their work and during their first year state officials. Three justices of the Territorial Su of operation produced a total of 63 written opin preme Court, Edward Kent, Fletcher M. Doan and ions. Edward M. Doe, were nominated in the Republican primary for posts on the new State Supreme Court. At the general election of November 3, 1914, They were defeated by the three Democratic nom all three justices were reelected and the minute inees, Donnell Cunningham, Alfred Franklin and L. book of the Court for January 4, 1915 reveals that Henry D. Ross, who thus constituted the first mem they assembled at the capitol on that day and did bers of the new State Supreme Court. The Court "classify by lot" their terms of office, as required opened in the capitol on February 14, 1912. Justice by the original Constitution. Justice Ross drew the Cunningham, a native of Alabama, came to the two year term, due to expire in January 1917, Jus territory of Arizona in the 1890's after losing all of tice Franklin the four year term to expire in Janu his property in a Colorado fire, and for a time ary 19-19, and Justice Cunningham the six year term worked as a day laborer in Flagstaff until he could to expire in January 1921. The first change in court begin life anew as an attorney. As a resident of personnel occurred in November 1918 when Justice Tombstone, he was a delegate from Cochise Coun Franklin resigned following his defeat for renom ty to the Constitutional Convention in 1910. Justice ination in the Democratic Party. Later a recluse, he Franklin, a native of Missouri, had lived in China lived near the banks of the Gila River and even while his father, Territorial Governor Benjamin J. tually disappeared altogether. The Governor ap Franklin, was a United States Consul there. The pointed John Wilson Ross of Cochise County, a family settled in Phoenix in 1892 and the Justice brother of Justice Henry D. Ross, to complete the was a delegate to the 1910 Constitutional Conven unexpired term ending January 1919. A newly elect tion. Justice Ross, a native of Arkansas, arrived in ed justice, Albert C. Baker, had been Territorial Flagstaff as a teacher in 1886, but soon was ad Chief Justice, 1893-1897, a delegate to the Consti mitted to the bar and thereafter was a prominent tutional Convention of 1910, and a widely respect attorney in both Coconino and Yavapai Counties. ed Phoenix attorney for many decades. Justice Baker was well past 70 years of age when he took his seat on the Court and served but two and one At the first session of the Supreme Court, the half years before his death in August of 1921. His Justices appointed Paul C. Thorne, as reporter of successor, by the appointment of the Governor, the tribunal's decisions, and J. P. Dillon, clerk of was Justice Edward J. Flanigan, a Bisbee attorney the court. The latter in turn named Angie B. Parker who had been the Republican nominee for justice to be his deputy clerk. On March 18, J. P. Bates in 1920. was chosen bailiff of the Court and the same day an order provided that the " ... Rules of the Ter Justice Cunningham did not seek reelection in ritorial Supreme Court shall stand as Rules of the 1920, although four years later he unsuccessfully State Supreme Court until further orders of the sought renomination. Archibald G. McAlister, su Court." New rules were announced on October 7, perior court judge in Graham County since state 1912. On March 19, the Court also ordered that all hood, was chosen as his successor. A native of cases then pending before the Territorial Court, South Carolina, Justice McAlister had been a teacher excepting those of a federal nature, be transferred and principal, studied law by correspondence, and
6 then practiced law for several years. Between Janu other was Marlin T. Phelps of Phoenix, a former ary of 1923 and January of 1925, Frank H. Lyman superior court judge, who was born in Tennessee was a member of the high tribunal. He was ad nearly 70 years before. Justice DeConcini declined mitted to the Michigan bar before settling in Phoe to run for reelection and retired in 1953, but Jus nix, and had served as a Maricopa County superior tice Phelps served until the voters retired him from court judge. Later he sought the Democratic nom office in 1961. ination for Governor. In the Democratic primary of 1924, Alfred C. Lockwood, an Illinois native, re Although the Constitution still provided that the ceived the nomination and was elected to the Su office of Chief Justice be given to the member of preme Court. He had been an attorney in Douglas, the Court with the least time yet to be served on and had served as a superior court judge in Cochise a full elective term, this now became numerically County. He took office in January of 1925 and from impossible and therefore the justices informally then until January of 1943, when he retired-a annually rotated the office during those periods period of 18 years-the membership of the Court when there were two justices with equal remain remained unchanged. ing terms of service to be completed. The problem was solved by a 1960 constitutional amendment During his years of service on the Court, Jus providing for peer election of the Chief Justice. tice Alfred C. Lockwood produced 1,205 written opinions for the Court, an average of nearly 67 In 1953 Justice Dudley W. Windes succeeded opinions per year. At his death Justice Levi Udall Justice DeConcini and two years later Fred C. said of him, "No man has contributed more to our Struckmeyer, Jr. succeeded Justice Stanford. Both jurisprudence." (Justice Henry D. Ross wrote a new men were Arizona natives, the former of Pres total of 1,195 opinions, but they were over a 33 cott and the latter of Phoenix, and both had served year period, for an average of 36 opinions per as Maricopa County superior court judges. Justice year.) Former Governor R. C. Stanford took office Windes was nearly 65 years of age upon joining on the Supreme Court in January of 1943, and the Court and Justice Struckmeyer, one day short served until retirement at the age of 76 in Janu of 43, was the youngest man ever elected to the ary of 1955. Justice Arthur T. LaPrade, a Winslow Court. Justice LaPrade died suddenly on June 30, native, and superior court judge in Maricopa Coun 1957, and that September Governor McFarland ty, took his seat on the Court in January of 1945 named J. Mercer Johnson to fill the vacancy. John after defeating Justice McAlister in the Democratic son, a native of Naco, Arizona, had been Assistant primary the year before. The death of Justice _Ross Pima County Attorney and a superior court judge. in February of 1945 closed a record tenure of 33 He served until September of 1960, when he re years on the high tribunal. His successor, Joseph signed in protest because the legislature failed to H. Morgan, served until January of 1947. Justice increase what he considered to be a low salary of Morgan was originally from County Roscommon, $15,000. The former justice resumed the practice of law in Tucson. lreland1 and practiced law in Prescott and later in Phoenix. Justice Charles C. Bernstein of Phoenix took his seat on the high court in January of 1959. A native In the Democratic primary of 1946 Justice Mor of St. Louis, but raised in Los Angeles, he had been gan was defeated by Levi S. Udall, a native of an Arizona attorney for three decades. One of his St. Johns, a former county attorney and superior major interests was juvenile court matters and the court judge in Apache County. He was the son of problems of youth. Mormon pioneers and a member of a prominent family. Justice Udall won reelection to the bench Governor Fannin appointed Jesse A. Udall in in 1952 and 1958. His judicial career continued 1960 as the successor to his brother, Levi S. Udall. until his death on May 30, 1960. Justice Jesse A. Udall had also served as a superior court judge and held several important posts and An act of the legislature in 1947, (Laws of 1947, offices in the L.D.S. Church. Chapter 135) provided that after the first Monday in January of 1949 the Supreme Court should con Upon the resignation of Justice Johnson, the sist of five members. This was done in recognition Governor named Tucson attorney Robert 0. Lesher of the fact that the state had grown in population to serve until an elected successor was chosen. over the years and was about to experience enor Justice Lesher, at 39, was the youngest man ever to mous increases in population. A three member serve on the Court but after only three months Court simply could not cope with the work load. he returned to his law practice in Pima County. As a result of the expansion, two new justices, both The man who defeated Justice Lesher at the polls Democrats, took office on January 3, 1949. One was Renz L. Jennings, a native Arizonan, former was Eva DeConcini of Tucson, born in Michigan state legislator, county attorney and superior court but a resident of Pima County since 1920. The judge in Maricopa County. After serving three and
7 one-half years, Justice Jennings resigned from the named William A. Holohan as his successor. A Court to seek the Democratic nomination to the native of Tucson, but for some years a resident of United States House of Representatives. Phoenix, Justice Holohan was serving as a judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court at the time Justice Lorna E. Lockwood, daughter of Justice of his appointment. Alfred C. Lockwood, took her oath of office on January 3, 1961. Arizona thus became the first At the time of the retirement of Justice Lorna state to have had a father and a daughter serve on E. Lockwood, the new merit selection system was its Supreme Court. A native of Douglas, Justice in operation and therefore the appellate nominat Lorna E. Lockwood had served in the State Legis ing commission submitted the required three names lature and had been a Maricopa County superior to th e Governor so that he might name a new court judge before being seated on the high tri justice. He selected Frank X. Gordon, Jr., of King bunal. Later, in 1965, Justice Lockwood became the man, a Mohave County Superior Court judge, who first woman Chief Justi ce in the nation. then took his seat on the Supreme Court on Sep tember 16, 1975. When Justice Jennings left the Court, Governor At the present time the Arizona Supreme Court Fannin named Edward W. Scruggs, Tucson attorney is composed of Chief Justice James Duke Cameron, and former United States Attorney, as his suc Vi ce-Chief Justice Fred C. Struckmeyer, Jr., Justice cessor. Justice Scruggs was the last representative Jack D. H. Hays, Justice William A. Holohan, and on the Court of the old tradition of self-educated Ju stice Frank X. Gordon, Jr. Two of the five Justices lawyers. He had read law on his own and was . are Arizona natives, while the other three have tutored by two judges for whom he served as clerk. sp ent most of their lives in the state. All were prac In the general el ection of 1964, Justice Scruggs ticing attorneys for some time and all had trial was defeated by Ernest W. McFarland who was court experience while serving as superior court seated on the Court the following January. Justice judges. McFarland, originally from Oklahoma, had formerly been a United States Senator and Governor of During the years of its existence the Supreme Arizona. Court has had four homes. In 1912 it occupied the quarters in the original capitol building, built in In 1968, Justice Bernstein was defeated for re 1901 , which housed the Territorial Supreme Court. election by Judge Jack D. H. Hays of the Maricopa With the addition of new space to the capitol in County Superior Court. Justice Hays, sworn into 1919 it moved and again twenty years later it was office in January 1969, is a native of Nevada, and relocated in slightly more spacious quarters. In also a former United States Attorney for Arizona. 1975 · the West Wing of the capitol, a nine-story James Duke Cameron, Yuma attorney and judge office building located next to the 1901 building, of the Court of Appeals was elected to the Su was completed. The Supreme Court in 1975, moved preme Court in 1970. When Justice Udall retired, to its present location on the second floor of the due to the ill health of his wife, Governor Williams West Wing.
CURR ENT SUPREM E CO URT OPERATION S A N D PROCEDURES
The Arizona Supreme Court continued to elect Following the creation of the Arizona Court of the Chief Justice and Vice-Chief Justice annually Appeals, the petition for review became an im until 1972 when Justice Hays served by agreement portant procedural device in Arizona. By means for a three year period. A 1974 amendment to the of this petition a party can request the Supreme Constitution provided a five year term for the Chief Court to review a decision of the court of appeals. Justice but the Vice-Chief Justice was to be elected Generally about 15 such petitions are considered for a "term determined by the Court." Presently by the Court each week, although the number may that term is also five years. The Chief Justice pre range as high as 30. The number of petitions for sides over the Supreme Court and also supervises review filed has increased from 77 in 1965 to 592 the administration of all state courts. In the absence in 1976. The Court accepted 23 cases for review of the Chief Justice the Vice-Chief Justice so acts. in 1965 and 67 cases in 1976. On a percentage basis, Should there be an occasion when both are away however, the total number of petitions granted for from duty the senior justice in point of service review has decreased from 29.8% of those filed on the Court traditionally carries on their duties. in 1965 to 11.3% of those filed in 1976.
Cases where a penalty of death or life imprison On January 1, 'I 970, the Arizona Supreme Court ment has actually been imposed are directly ap adopted Rules of Procedure For Special Actions. pealed to the Supreme Court. Most other matters The forms and proceedings for the traditional ex coming before the high tribunal are discretionary. traordinary writs of certiorari, mandamus and pro-
8 hibition were replaced by the Special Action pro Linner's successor, who had previously been deputy ceeding. The purpose of these rules was to provide administrative director, was Noel K. Dessaint who a uniform method for seeking the same type of currently holds the office. All three directors have relief previously granted by means of the ancient been members of the Arizona Bar. Over the years extraordinary writs. the duties and responsibilities of the office have expanded. While the justices of the Supreme Court have a preeminent role in the functioning of the Arizona One of the major responsibilities of the admin Supreme Court, their work is aided and assisted istrative di rec tor is related to budget and fiscal by others. Each justice has a secretary and two matters. He is directly responsible for the prepara law clerks. A position formerly designated as "re tion of budget requests for the Supreme Court, search analyst" has gradually evolved into a central the Com;nission on Judicial Qualifications, the staff now consisting of five attorneys. In 1975 the Commissions on Trial and Appellate Court Appoint term "staff attorney" came into use for lawyers ments, and the budget for the state's share of serving on the central staff. superior court judges' salaries. He supervises the processing of the payrolls and is responsible for The power of the Supreme Court to transfer administering these budgets. Since the court of cases either out to the court of appeals or into appeals does not have an administrative director, the Supreme Court from the court of appeals has he assists and coordinates with that court in pre played a significant role in the work of the high paring its budget request. Once the budget re tribunal. Since the Supreme Court first transferred quests are transmitted by the Governor to the legis out 259 cases after the creation of the court of lature, the administrative director appears before appeals, that aspect of transfer has not been im the legislature's appropriations committees to pre portant. From 1971 through 1976 only six cases sent the requests of the judiciary. The administra were sent to the court of appeals. However, in tive director also acts as the secretary to the Com recent years the Supreme Court has transferred to mission on Judicial Qualifications and maintains itself a substantial number of cases in order to their confidential files. aid the court of appeals, particularly Division 1. In 1975 the number of cases transferred in was Other primary duties of the office include the 107; and in 1976 it was 142. In recent years the planning and holding of two annual judicial con Supreme Court has also required that virtually all ferences, one for appellate and superior court Special Action petitions be filed with it rather than judges, and one for justices of the peace and mu Division 1 of the Court of Appeals in order to aid nicipal judges. Court statistical reports are also filed that court. with the administrative director's office.
Many other matters are brought to the atten The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is em tion of the Supreme Court. Petitions for attorney's powered to appoint judges pro tempore of the fees in criminal cases, although paid by the coun superior court and justices of the peace pro tem ties, must be set by the Court. A substantial num pore. These appointments, as well as temporary ber of petitions pro per arrive from inmates of the rea ssignments of justices of the peace are coordin prison and county jails, as well as the State Hos ated through the administrative director. pital. The Supreme Court, through its rule-making power, also regulates the State Bar of Arizona and is the final authority on bar disciplinary matters. CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
At a time when an increasing amount of work The Arizona Constitution has always authorized is being delegated to non-judges nationally, the the Supreme Court to name a clerk who serves at its Arizona Supreme Court espouses the philosophy pleasure. To date only five individuals have held that all matters relating to the merits of a litigant's the post since statehood; J. P. Dillon, two years; appeal are reserved to the justices for decision. C. F. Leonard, seven years; Eugenia Davis, nearly four decades; Sylvia Hawkinson, over ten years; ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR and Clifford H. Ward, incumbent since 1970. Mr. Ward's chief deputy, Mary Ann Hopkins, has also served in her present post since 1970. The "Modern Courts Amendment" of 1960 pro vided in the Constitution that "the Supreme Court Many. of the duties of the clerk have remained shall appoint an administrative director and staff to the same since statehood. According to A.R.S. serve at its pleasure to assist the chief justice in § 12-202 the clerk shall: discharging his administrative duties." Article VI, 1. Attend sessions of the court. Section 7. On June 5, 1961, the Court appointed its first administrative director, Allen L. Feinstein. After 2. Issue writs and processes of the court. his resignation in 1964, he was succeeded by Mar 3. Enter, under the direction of the court, all vin Linner who served until the end of 1976. orders, judgments and decrees required to be
9 entered, the title of each action, the date of form such other duties as required by law filing it in the supreme court, and a memor or the court. andum of all subsequent proceedings, with The clerks' office maintains all of the case files the date and the fees charged. of the Court and assists the Court in the calendar ing of cases. This office is also responsible for duplication and distribution of the Court's written 4. Keep such other books of record and per- opinions.
STATE JUDICIAL EXPENDITURES
% Increase % Increase 1965-66/ 1965-66/ 1965-66 1970-71 1970-71 1975-76 1975-76 Supreme Court $273,619 438,635 849,866 Court of Appeals Division 1 131,868 350,635 956,046 Division 2 136,236 197,242 361,127 Superior Court' 371,564 556,367 1,143,951 Commission on Judicial Qualifications - - 2,735 Commisisons on Appellate and Trial Court Appointments - - 2,489 TOTAL: 913,287 1,542,879 68.9% 3,316,214 263.1% State General Fund Operating Budget Expenses $182,955,601 359,186,963 96.3% 704,707,673 285.2% State Court Expenditures in Relation to Total State General Fund Operating Budget Expenses 0.50% 0.43% 0.47%
'Represents payment of one-half of Superior Court judges salaries; one-half is also paid by the individual counties.
SUPREME COURT STATISTICS
The following statistical tables illustrate the rising The Court resolved and rernoved from its calen case load before the Supreme Court over the years, dar 168 cases in 1952; while in 1976 it terminated and the increased productivity of the Court in re 1,043 matters, an increase of 521 % . solving the matters before it. In 1952, 147 cases Since 1970, Supreme Court statistics have been were filed in the Supreme Court, as compared to maintained on a uniform basis. Consequently the 921 filings in 1976. This represents an increase of following tables, for the most part, emphasize the 527% in case filings. period from 1970 to 1976.
10 SUPREME COURT
CASE FILINGS - BY TYPE
PETITIONS EXTRA- DELAYED INDUSTRIAL FOR ORDINARY APPEALS HABEAS COMMISSION/ ST. YEAR CIVIL CRIMINAL REVIEW (1) WRITS (2) (3) CORPUS MISC. (4) BAR TOTAL
1952 100 13 17 N/A 15 2 147 195 3 88 9 18 N/A 14 2 131 1954 103 23 20 N/A 29 0 175 1955 138 16 35 N/A 18 2 209 1956 118 13 21 N/A 20 3 175 1957 160 18 35 N/A 19 0 232 1958 130 24 48 N/A 15 2 219 1959 147 32 48 N/A 23 2 252 1960 148 20 48 N/A 17 5 238 196 1 188 52 60 N/A 19 2 321 1962 187 65 60 38 38 2 390 1963 205 110 69 82 24 4 494 1964 214 128 74 25 178 51 2 672 1965 (5 9 54 77 39 30 96 1 5 311 1966 1 75 176 66 29 96 --- 6 449 1967 3 90 185 63 14 87 --- 6 448 196 8 1 99 185 114 16 95 -- - 4 514 1969 1 91 222 82 22 90 --- 7 515 1970 15 119 301 99 39 108 24 4 709 1971 9 157 302 83 17 85 25 12 690 1972 8 118 308 85 18 98 45 22 702 1973 8 200 298 77 15 64 34 18 714 1974 6 192 303 150 9 10 16 27 713 1975 4 63 499 174 1 13 16 29 799 1976 4 63 592 170 2 21 40 29 921 TOTAL 1,995 1,844 3,448 1,755 237 1,161 303/200 197 11,140 % OF FILINGS 17.9% 16 .6% 30.9% 15.8% 2 .1% 10.4% 2. 7%/ 1. 8% . 8o/. 100.0% (1) Initiated in 1965 wi th the creation of the Court of Ap peals. (2) Extraordinary Writs were £ombined in 1970 by rule of the Supreme Court into one proceeding called Special Actions. (3) No t r eported separately prior to 1964 . (4) 1952-1965: Industrial Commission case filings; Industrial cases filed after 1955 included in "Pe t ions .for Review" figures. 1970 - 1976: M:i_scellaneous Case filings . (5) The significant decrease in filings in 1965 is at t ributed to the creation of the Court of Appeals in that year.
11 SUPREME COURT
CASES TERMINATED
(1) OTHER (1) OTHER YEAR OPINIONS DISPOSITIONS TOTAL YEAR OPINIONS DISPOSITIONS TOTAL
1912-13 63 N/A 63 1959 111 72 183 1923 95 N/A 95 1960 124 74 198
1933 96 N/A 96 1961 122 103 225
1943 71 18 89 1962 160 65 225
1944 77 20 97 1963 216 181 397
1945 104 22 126 1964 177 296 473
1946 75 11 86 1965 176 262 438
1947 80 25 105 1966 192 313 505
1948 72 23 95 1967 158 401 559
1949 83 16 99 1968 164 347 511
1950 122 13 135 1969 205 360 565
1951 131 56 187 1970 225 493 718
1952 128 40 168 1971 190 453 643
1953 115 37 152 1972 193 531 724
1954 117 47 164 1973 234/ 56 474 764
1955 107 40 147 1974 210/ 109 438 757
1956 112 63 175 1975 222/ 68 659 949
1957 126 70 196 1976 185/ 84 774 1043 1958 138 62 200
(I) All Written Opinions through 1972; 1973 - 1976: Written Opinions/Memorandum Decisions.
N/A Data Not Available
12 SUPREME COURT
SUMMARY CASE ACTIVITY 1970 - 1976
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO (1) WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINIONS DECISIONS OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1970 709 + 7 - 13 225 --- 493 718 307 1971 690 + 33 - 1 190 --- 453 643 386 1972 702 + 23 - 3 193 --- 531 724 384
1973 714 + 6 - 0 234 56 474 764 340
1974 713 + 54 - 2 210 109 438 7 57 348
1975 799 +107 - 0 222 68 659 949 305
1976 921 +142 - 0 185 84 774 1,043 325
TOTAL 5,248 +372 - 19 1,459 317 3,822 5,598
AVG. 749.7 53.1 2.7 208.4 45.3 546.0 799.7 342.1
TRANSFERS: In(+) denotes cases tranferred to Supreme Court from Court of Appeals; Out (-) denotes cases tranferred from Supreme Court to Court of Appeals. Statistics on cases tranferred since creation of the Court of Appeals (1965) and not shown above are:
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969
+O -259 +o -33 +5 -9 +5 -14 +61 -20
(1) Memorandum Decisions were initiated in 1973 pursuant to Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 48.
13 SUPREME COURT CASE ACTIVITY - BY TYPE 1970 - 1976
CIVIL
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINIONS DECISIONS OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1970 15 + 5 - 8 36 - -- 3 39 12 1971 9 + 32 - 1 37 --- 5 42 10 1972 8 + 21 - 3 14 --- 3 17 19
1973 8 + 3 - 0 27 0 3 30 0
1974 6 + 48 - 0 7 8 0 15 39
1975 4 + 28 - 0 53 1 2 56 15
1976 4 + 31 - 0 22 1 3 26 24
TOTAL 54 +168 -12 196 10 19 225
CRIMINAL
T,ERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINIONS DECISIONS OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1970 119 + 2 - 5 96 --- 52 148 263 1971 157 + 1 - 0 96 --- 17 113 308 1972 118 + 2 - 0 99 --- 25 124 304 1973 200 + 3 - 0 134 56 34 224 283 1974 192 + 3 - 2 120 100 18 238 238
1975 63 + 78 - 0 98 62 18 178 201 1976 63 +106 - 0 72 74 9 155 215 TOTAI 912 +195 - 7 715 292 173 1,180 ·---- NOTE: A.R.S. 12-120.21 required that criminal case convictions punishable by death or life imprisonment be directly appealed to the Supreme Court. Chapter 7, Laws of 1974 amended this statute to provide that only those criminal actions for which a sentence of death or life imprisonment was actually imposed be appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
14 SUPREME COURT
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINIONS DECISIONS OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1970 301 51 --- 253 304 14
1971 302 31 - -- 259 290 26 1972 308 35 --- 270 305 29
1973 298 38 0 265 303 24
1974 303 39 0 248 287 40
1975 499 36 0 438 474 65
1976 592 64 3 536 603 54 trOTAL 2,603 294 3 2,269 2,566
SPECIAL ACTIONS
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR F ILINGS IN OUT OPINIONS DECISIONS OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1970 99 + 0 - 0 34 --- 52 86 2 1971 83 + 0 - 0 18 --- 62 80 5 1972 85 + 0 - 0 26 --- 58 84 6
1973 77 + 0 - 0 21 0 59 80 3 1974 150 + 3 - 0 23 0 108 131 25 1975 174 + 0 - 0 31 3 144 178 21
1976 170 + 0 - 0 19 0 152 171 20
TOTAL 838 + 3 - 0 172 3 635 810
15 SUPREME COURT DELAYED APPEALS
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINIONS DECISIONS OPINION TOTAL YEAR END
1970 39 + 0 - 0 N/A --- N/A N/A 13 1971 17 + 0 - 0 4 --- 4 8 22 1972 18 + 0 - 0 15 -- - 9 24 16 1973 15 + 0 - 0 9 0 10 19 12 1974 9 + 0 - 0 16 0 3 19 2 1975 1 + 1 - 0 3 1 0 4 0 1976 2 + 5 - 0 2 2 0 4 3 II'OTAL 101 + 6 - 0 49 3 26 78
N/A - Data Not Available
HABEAS CORPUS
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINIONS DECISIONS OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1970 108 + 0 - 0 3 --- 108 111 2
1971 85 + 0 - 0 0 --- 82 82 5
1972 98 + 0 - 0 0 --- 97 97 6
1973 64 + 0 - 0 4 0 57 61 9
1974 10 + 0 - 0 1 1 17 19 0
1975 13 + 0 - 0 0 1 12 13 0 1976 21 + 0 - 0 2 2 15 19 2
TOTAL 399 + 0 - 0 10 4 388 402
16 SUPREME COURT STATE BAR MATTERS
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1970 4 5 --- 1 6 1 1971 12 4 -- - 5 9 4 1972 22 3 --- 21 24 2
1973 18 1 0 15 16 4
1974 27 4 0 23 27 4
1975 29 1 0 29 30 3 1976 29 4 1 21 26 6
TOTAL 141 22 1 115 138
MISCELLANEOUS CASES
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1970 24 + 0 - 0 0 --- 24 24 0 1971 25 + 0 - 0 0 -- - 19 19 6 1972 45 + 0 - 0 1 --- 48 49 2
1973 34 + 0 - 0 0 0 31 31 5
1974 16 + 0 - 0 0 0 21 21 0
1975 16 + 0 - 0 0 0 16 16 0
1976 40 I+ 0 - 0 0 1 38 39 1
TOTAL 200 H- 0 - 0 1 1 197 199
17 COURT OF APPEALS
The "Modern Courts Amendment" of 1960 au division of the court of appeals which has jurisdic thorized the legislature to create an intermediate tion over that county. All Industrial Commission appellate court. In succeeding years the work load appeals are assigned only to Division 1. No case in of the Supreme Court began to increase dramatic the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals will be ally. In 1960 the Supreme Court received 238 case dismissed because it is not filed in the proper filings and by the end of 1964 case filings had court or division, but rather it will be transferred. risen to 672. On April 6, 1964, Governor Fannin signed the bill which created the intermediate ap Creation of the Court of Appeals had a dramatic pellate court consisting of two divisions. effect on the Supreme Court's work load. On January 1, 1965 the high tribunal had 838 cases The new court became operational in January pending before it and during the course of the year of 1965. Division 1 has jurisdiction over the coun there were 311 new filings. In that first year the ties of Maricopa, Yuma, Mohave, Coconino, Yava Supreme Court transferred 259 cases to the Court pai, Navajo and Apache. Division 2 is composed of Appeals, 151 to Division 1 and 108 to Division 2. of the counties of Pima, Pinal, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Thus the Supreme Court achieved a manageable Greenlee, Graham and Gila. Division 1 is head case load. During 1965 Division 1 of the Court of quartered at Phoenix and Division 2 at Tucson. Appeals had 326 additional cases filed before it while Division 2 had 158 additional case filings. The Act which created the court, (Laws of 1964, During 1968 Division 2 had 301 cases before it Chapter 102), provided for popular election of the while Division 1 had 668 cases before it, more than appellate judges. A judge had to be no less than double that of Division 2. An obvious unequal dis 30 years of age, of good moral character, a quali tribution of cases had occurred. fied elector in the county of his residence, a mem ber of the bar in and a resident of Arizona for at In 1969 the legislature, in an ongoing effort to least five years prior to taking office. equalize the work load, expanded Division 1 by adding another three judge panel. Effective July 1 Nominated in a partisan primary, but elected in of that year Division 1 was composed of Depart the general election without party designation, two ments A and B with three judges each. Maricopa of the judges of Division 1 were to be chosen from County would provide and elect four of the six Maricopa County, while the other was to be from judges while the other counties within the division another county within the Division. Two of the would elect the other two. Temporarily there was judges of Division 2 were to be chosen fro•m Pima a more equitable distribution of labor but again it County and the other from another county within became necessary for the legislature to once more the Division. expand the Court of Appeals. In 1972, Division 2 had 339 cases before it while Division 1 had 1,147 cases. An Act signed by the Governor on May 14, The Act provides for a chief judge of each divi and effective July 1, 1973, (Laws 1973, Chapter 147), sion who "shall exercise administrative supervision added Department C to Division 1. In keeping with over the division in which he serves and shall have past geographical distribution, six of the nine judges such other duties as may be provided by rules of were chosen from and by the voters of Maricopa the supreme court. ... " A clerk and other required County while three were elected from the other personnel are selected by the judges in each divi counties within Division 1. sion and they serve at the pleasure of the court. The Chief Judge of Division 1 may, and at the The Court of Appeals upon its creation was given direction of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, (1) original jurisdiction of habeas corpus, (2) ap shall designate one of the departments to hear pellate jurisdiction in all matters originating in or all Industrial Commission appeals. Periodically the appealable from the superior court except criminal members of Division 1 move from one department cases punishable by death or life imprisonment to another. This latter situation is caused by the. which were filed directly in the Supreme Court, (3) fact that currently Department C is assigned the jurisdiction to review and affirm or set aside awards workmen's compensation matters and each judge made by the Industrial Commission in workmen's takes a turn at serving in that department. compensation matters, and (4) the power to issue all writs necessary to the full exercise of its appellate In his State of the Judiciary Address to the State jurisdiction. The statutes also defined the judg Bar Convention on May 4, 1977, Chief Justice Cam ments and orders from which appeals could be eron remarked that "the overall statistics indicate a taken. need now for three n2w judges on the Court of Appeals." As of December 31, 1976, Division 2 had Matters originating in or appealed from the 318 pending cases, while Division 1 had 1,098 pend superior court in a county must be filed in the ing cases.
18 COURT OF APPEALS STATISTICS
The following tables illustrate the case filings and load has risen dramatically since 1973 as reflected dispositions of both Division 1 and 2 of the Court in the summary table; at the close of 1976 Division of Appeals from 1965 through 1976. The sum 1 had 1,098 cases pending before it. Division 1 also mary tables, so far as can be determined, accurately ended 1975 with 1,098 total pending cases. In 1976, depict the total case activity of the court for that the pending cases were kept at 1,098 due in part 12 year period. to assistance from the Supreme Court and Divi sion 2. However, pending case loads in the civil The individual tables, which report cases by and criminal categories increased in Division 1 in type, were prepared in an effort to portray the 1976 as compared with 1975. case activity within individual categories. Since statistical information was predominantly compiled Division 2 received 202 new cases in 1967 as in Division 1 on a summary basis for 1965 and 1966, compared to 620 new case filings in 1976, which case by type information is not readily available represents a 207% increase. The productivity of the for those years. court in disposing of and terminating the cases before it rose significantly during 1975 and 1976. In 1967 Division 1 received 324 new case filings, In 1967 the court terminated 210 cases while in while 1,397 new cases were filed in 1976. This 1976 it terminated 476 cases, an increase of 127%. represents a 331 % increase. The court terminated Despite these efforts the pending case load at the 273 cases in 1967 and 1,239 cases in 1976, an in end of 1976 rose to 318 cases . crease of 354%. Despite the addition of six more judges in Division 1, three in 1969 and three in With the anticipated continued increase in super 1973, and despite the significant increased produc ior court dispositions, an increase in new appeals tivity of the court, pending cases at the end of each filed may also occur at the intermediate appellate year have continued to increase. The pending case court level.
19 COURT OF APPEALS - DIVISION 1
SUMMARY - CASE ACTIVITY 1965 - 19 76
TER."1INATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 326 l+151 -0 135 -- 96 231 246 1966 309 +4 -1 193 -- 112 305 253 1967 324 +4 -1 180 -- 93 273 307 1968 361 +3 -4 167 -- 101 268 399 1969 452 +4 - 62 235 -- 145 380 413 1970 630 +3 -28 300 -- 205 505 513 1971 557 +2 -12 333 -- 208 541 519 1972 628 +l -19 317 -- 200 517 612 1973 661 +l -6 363 0 208 571 697 1974 929 0 -52 202 222 223 647 927 1975 1,185 0 -112 272 333 297 902 1,098 1976 1,397 0 -158 297 507 435 1,239 1,098 TOTAL 7,759 f+-173 -455 2,994 1,062 2 , 323 6,379
Memorandwn Decisions initiated in 1973 by Supre~e Court rule.
CASE ACTIVITY - BY TYPE 1965 - 1976 CIVIL
TERHINA TIONS TRANSFER S \•lRITTE;'1 MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YF.AR FILINGS B OUT OPINIO N DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 211 1966 174 +l -1 114 80 r94 191 1967 205 +2 0 104 57 161 237 1968 212 +2 0 88 61 149 302 1969 219 +l -60 143 75 218 244 1970 261 0 -25 147 88 235 245 1971 256 0 -10 135 84 219 272 1972 294 +l -17 146 82 228 322 1973 285 0 -2 114 0 90 204 401 1974 295 0 -46 98 64 83 245 405 1975 314 0 -27 124 53 98 275 417 1976 377 0 -28 111 86 119 316 450 TOTAL 2,892 +7 216 1,324 203 917 2,444
N/A - DATA NOT AVAILABLE
20 COURT OF APPEALS - DIVISION 1
CRIMINAL
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PE NDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1966 52 +l 0 34 12 46 33 1967 32 0 -1 30 8 38 26 1968 46 0 -3 26 3 29 40 1969 53 +l -2 31 12 43 49 1970 93 +3 -3 37 14 51 91 1971 96 +l -1 49 24 73 114 1972 85 0 -2 73 33 106 91 1973 116 +l -4 115 0 19 134 70 1974 360 0 -5 37 66 40 143 282 1975 692 0 -85 58 169 125 352 537 1976 750 0 130 107 334 219 660 497 TOTAL 2,375 +7 236 597 569 509 1,675
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 30 1966 34 +2 0 45 18 63 3 1967 62 0 0 36 10 46 19 1968 67 +l -1 48 12 60 26 1969 139 0 0 52 21 73 92 1970 213 0 0 101 59 160 145 1971 143 0 0 134 53 187 101 1972 177 0 0 79 37 116 162 1973 175 0 0 111 0 49 160 177 1974 185 0 0 42 79 44 165 197 1975 157 0 0 86 105 61 252 102 1976 243 0 0 72 80 65 217 128 TOTAL 1,595 +3 -1 806 264 429 1,499
N/A DATA NOT AVAILABLE
21 COURT OF APPEALS - DIVISION 1
SPECIAL ACTIONS*
TERMINATIONS TRA NSFERS WRITTEN ME·10 WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1966 44 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 1967 24 0 0 9 16 25 5 1968 31 0 0 5 21 26 10 1969 36 0 0 8 32 40 6 1970 54 0 0 14 39 53 7 1971 55 +l -1 13 43 56 6 1972 65 0 0 18 43 61 10 1973 64 0 0 16 0 45 61 13 1974 70 0 -1 19 5 51 75 7 1975 11 0 0 1 1 7 9 9 1976 16 0 0 0 0 24 24 1 TOTAL 470 +l -2 103 6 321 430
'~In 1970 Extraordinary Writs were combined by Rule of the Supreme Court into one proceeding called "Special Actions."
HABEAS CORPUS
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS I N OUT OPINION DEC ISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1966 3 N/A N/A 0 2 2 1 1967 1 +l 0 1 1 2 1 1968 4 0 0 0 4 4 1 1969 4 +2 0 1 4 5 2 1970 5 0 0 0 3 3 4 1971 4 0 0 2 3 5 3 1972 2 0 0 1 3 4 1 1973 5 0 0 2 0 2 4 2 1974 3 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 1975 2 0 0 0 1 2 3 2 1976 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 TOTAL 35 +3 0 10 1 25 36
N/A - DATA NOT AVAILABLE
22 COURT OF APPEALS - DIVISION 1
DELAYED APPEALS
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS HRITTEN MD-10 WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1966 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1967 N/A 0 0 +l 0 0 1 1 0 1968 1 0 0 0 0 1969 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1970 4 0 0 1 2 1971 3 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 4 1972 3 0 0 0 1 1973 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 1974 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 1976 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 TOTAL 17 +l 0 1 0 15 16
JUVENILE APPEALS*
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS D! OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1973 14 0 0 5 0 2 7 8 1974 15 0 0 5 8 3 16 7 1975 9 0 0 3 4 4 11 5 1976 9 0 0 5 7 1 13 1 TOTAL 49 0 0 18 19 11 48 '· *Juvenile statistics not reported separately prior to 1972.
N/A DATA NOT AVAILABLE
23 COURT OF APPEALS - DIVISION 2
SUMMARY - CASE ACTIVITY 1965 - 1976 TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 266 (l) 0 0 110 58 168 98 1966 201 +31 0 131 86 217 113 1967 202 +2 -4 128 82 210 103 1968 198 +l -1 132 83 215 86 1969 219 +2 -1 116 93 209 97 1970 175 +7 - 2 134 77 211 66 1971 226 +l -4 92 105 197 92 1972 247 +2 -5 155 95 250 86 1973 260 +2 -2 124 15 121 260 86 1974 392 0 -6 88 84 125 297 175 1975 540 0 -1 172 159 206 537 177 1976 620* 0 -3 152 112 212* 476* 318 TOTAL 3,546 +48 -29 1,534 370 1,343 3,247 *Includes 4 petitions for review filed under Rule 32.9(C), Rules of Criminal Procedure , not shown in cases by type table. (1) Includes 108 cases transferred in from Supreme Court which were recorded as filings in 1965 MEMORANDUM DECISIONS - Initiated in 1973 by rule of the Supreme Court.
CASE ACTIVITY - BY TYPE 1965 - 1976
CIVIL
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRI'I'TEN MEHO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILI!\'GS IN OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 171 0 0 78 19 97 74 1966 130 +31 0 101 51 152 83 1967 104 +2 -1 93 28 121 67 1968 109 +l 0 81 35 116 61 1969 101 +l 0 74 27 101 62 1970 86 +l 0 91 17 108 41 1971 123 +l -2 65 37 102 61 1972 144 +2 -3 106 41 147 57 1973 123 0 -1 90 12 35 137 42 1974 144 0 -2 58 37 28 123 61 1975 153 0 -1 78 32 47 157 56 1976 222 0 -3 71 27 37 135 140 TOTAL 1,610 +39 -13 986 108 402 1,496
24 COURT OF APPEALS - DIVISION 2 CRIMINAL
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN M!'l-10 WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 51 0 0 20 17 37 14 1966 34 0 0 24 4 28 20 1967 31 0 -2 20 5 25 24 1968 32 0 -1 30 4 34 21 1969 58 +l 0 33 25 58 22 1970 32 +l 0 31 10 41 14 1971 28 0 0 17 11 28 14 1972 35 0 -2 26 8 34 13 1973 44 +l -1 22 3 6 31 26 1974 152 0 -2 15 42 23 80 96 1975 268 0 0 72 124 72 268 96 1976 250 0 0 50 81 57 188 158 TOTAL 1,015 +3 -8 360 250 242 852
SPECIAL ACTIONS(l)
TERi.'1INATIO NS TRANSFE RS WRITTEN MEMO WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 28 0 0 8 14 22 6 1966 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 1967 41 0 0 7 32 39 6 1968 34 0 0 17 21 38 2 1969 51 0 0 9 33 42 11 1970 57 +2 -2 12 47 59 9 1971 68 0 -2 10 51 61 14 1972 67 0 0 22 45 67 14 1973 91 0 0 12 0 78 90 15 1974 95 0 -2 15 3 74 92 16 1975 119 0 0 22 3 87 112 23 1976 144 0 0 31 4 114 149 18 TOTAL 795 +2 -6 165 10 596 771
(l)In 1970 Extraordinary Writs were combined by rule of the Supreme Court into one proceeding called "Special Actions." N/A - DATA NOT AVAILABLE
25 COURT OF APPEALS - DI VISION 2
HABEAS CORPUS
TE RMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTE:~ MG!O \HTIIOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPit-;ION DECISIO;:-.J OPETO~; TOTAL YEAR END 1965 16 0 0 4 8 12 4 1966 37 0 0 6 31 37 4 1967 24 0 0 8 17 25 3 1968 22 0 0 4 21 25 0 1969 7 0 0 0 7 7 0 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 TOTAL 106 0 0 22 84 106
Habeas Corpus appeals after 1969 included with the Civil category.
DELAYED APPEALS
TERMINATIONS TRANSFERS WRITTEN ME-10 WITHOUT PENDING YEAR FILINGS IN OUT OPINION DECISION OPINION TOTAL YEAR END 1965 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1967 2 0 -1 0 0 0 1 1968 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 1969 2 0 -1 0 1 1 0 1970 0 +3 0 0 3 3 0 1971 7 0 0 0 6 6 1 1972 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 1973 2 +l 0 0 0 2 2 1 1974 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1976 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 16 +4 -2 1 2 15 18
26 COMMISSION OF JUDICIAL QUALi FICATIONS
Since statehood it has been possible to remove guilty or no contest or is found guilty of a most judges from office before the expiration of crime punishable as a felony under Arizona or their terms by two methods: the recall and im federal law or of any other crime that involves peachment. Judges of the non-record courts are moral turpitude under such law. If his convic not, however, subject to impeachment pursuant tion is reversed the suspension terminates, and he shall be paid his salary for the period of to A.R.S. 38-311. The Constitution states that § suspension. If he is suspended and his con "every public officer in the State of Arizona, hold viction becomes final the supreme court shall ing an elective office, either by election or appoint remove him from office." ment" may be recalled.
Impeachment is handled in the traditional man A judge removed by the Supreme Court is there ner. A majority of the total membership of the after ineligible for judicial office in Arizona. Arizona House of Representatives must vote the Articles of Impeachment. The Chief Justice of the The commission may also recommend to the Supreme Court then presides over the impeach Supreme Court that it " ... retire a judge for dis ment trial before the Senate. ability that seriously interferes with the perform ance of his duties and is or is likely to become permanent.... " On the recommendation of the In 1970 the voters amended the State Consti commission the high tribunal may also " ... cen tution to create the Commission on Judicial Quali sure or remove a judge for action by him that fications which became operative in 1971. Arizona constitutes wilful misconduct in office, wilful and Constitution, Article VI.I. Each commission member persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual in holds a four year term of office, and the members temperance or conduct prejudicial to the adminis are selected by three different nominating authori tration of justice that brings the judicial office into ties. The Supreme Court names two judges of the disrepute." A judge so retired by the Court is con court of appeals, two judges of the superior court sidered to have retired voluntarily. and one justice of the peace; the State Bar Asso ciation chooses two bar members and the Gov ernor appoints, subject to Senate confirmation, The Constitution charges the Supreme Court with "two citizens who are not judges, retired judges the task of making rules for the implementation of nor members of the State Bar of Arizona." The the work of the commission and for the confi commission has no jurisdiction over municipal dentiality of the commission's proceedings. Chief judges serving in city courts. Justice Cameron, in his State of the Judiciary Ad dress to the State Bar Convention, May 4, 1977, Pursuant to Article VI.I, a judge is automatically said: disqualified from acting as a judge, without loss of salary, when " ... there is pending an indictment "Some complaints are filed by disgruntled liti or an information charging him in the United States gants as a substitute for the appeal process and with a crime punishable as a felony under Arizona most complaints are frivolous. During 1976, after the screening of frivolous matters, there or federal law, or a recommendation to the su were 15 formal complaints considered and preme court by the commission on judicial quali each was given in-depth consideration by the fications for his removal or retirement." Either on Commission." its own motion or on the recommendation of the commission, the Supreme Court: The Commission on Judicial Qualifications per forms a valuable function and its work helps to "may suspend a judge from office without maintain the high ethical conduct that is expected salary when, in the United States, he pleads of members of the Judiciary.
27 - · DEPAATMENT OF - - 11 ·BA~ ~v · ;~~0 ~ Hp_pl rS u·"J' FA z li~c, ~ Vt · THE SUPERIOR COURT
Article VI of the Arizona Constitution provides be provided by law or by rules of the Supreme for one superior court judge in each county and Court." Article VI, Section 11 . The presiding judge permits one additional judge for each additional may, with the approval of the Supreme Court, then 30,000 inhabitants or major fraction thereof. Ac appoint an associate presiding judge who serves at cordingly, in 1912 there were fourteen superior the pleasure of the presiding judge. court judges, one for each county. Over the years the number of superior court judges has increased. Each county has a Clerk of the Superior Court At the end of 1961 there were 32 judges in the who is popularly elected for a four year term. state; in 1977 there were 73 in the state and 35 Article VI, Section 23. Maricopa and Pima Coun of these were in Maricopa County. Since state ties currently have court administrators at the su hood 221 men and women have served as regular perior court level. Court reporters, interpreters, superior court judges. Service in office has ranged bailiffs and probation officers are appointed by the from but a few weeks to 38 years. Judge Gordon court. Farley of Santa Cruz County took office in January Court commissioners may be appointed by the of 1939 and is still serving. Twenty-one superior presiding judge of the superior court in counties court judges have served on the Arizona Supreme with three or more judges. Commissioners serve at Court while ten have served on the Court of Ap the pleasure of the presiding judge. The authori peals. Four served as Governor and one as a zation for commissioners was contained in the United States Senator. Six have also served on the "Modern Courts Amendment" of 1960, the same United States District Court for Arizona. constitutional change which also authorized the ap pointment of masters and referees by superior In order to increase the number of judges, the court judges. Commissioners, except in default hear County Board of Supervisors must first petition ings, are prohibited "from making any ex parte the Governor for his approval pursuant to A.R.S . orders which would deprive any person or persons § 12-121. The board must determine that the coun from custody of their child or children, or change ty has acquired, since the last census, the required of counsel of attorneys, or deprive any person of number of inhabitants. "The determination ... their liberty, or deprive any person or entity from shall be based on, but not limited to, recent esti their property or the use thereof, or any injunctive mates of population, if any, of any area within the relief." A. R.S. § 12-213. county issued by the bureau of the census, auto registrations, non-agricultural employment, gross The concept of specialization within the superior utility revenues and retail sales." A.R.S . § 12-121 (C). court in the various counties is most developed in the area of juvenile matters. In counties having Since statehood half of the salary of a superior more than one superior court judge a specialized court judge has been paid by the state and half juvenile court is established. Local rules may also by the county. A.R.S. § 12-128. When a county provide for some degree of specialization in pro requests the services of a non-resident judge, he is bate and criminal matters. Maricopa County now paid his actual expenses by the county in which has a number of its judges assigned exclusively to he serves. A.R.S. § 12-129. Since 1971, additional criminal matters and to domestic relations matters. judicial assistance has also been obtained through Pima County also has a separate criminal bench. the appointment of judges pro tempore pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-141. Upon the request of the pre Pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article VI, siding judge of a county, with the approyal of the Section 14, the superior court has original juris board of supervisors, the Chief Justice of the Su diction in the following matters: preme Court may appoint a judge pro tempore to 1. Cases and proceedings in which exclusive serve for a period of not more than six months. jurisdiction is not vested by law in another court. A judge pro tempore must be not less than 30 years of age, of good moral character and admitted 2. Cases of equity and at law which involve the to the practice of law in and a resident of the state title to or possession of real property, or the legal for five years preceding his appointment. ity of any tax, impost, assessment, toll or municipal ordinance. Since 1960 the Constitution has provided that 3. Other cases in which the demand or value of in each county having two or more superior court property in controversy amounts to one thousand judges (presently 10 of the 14 counties) the Su dollars or more, exclusive of interest and costs. preme Court shall designate a presiding judge who 11 • •• shall exercise administrative supervision over 4. Criminal cases amounting to felony, and cases the superior court and the judges thereof in their of misdemeanor not otherwise provided for by counties, and shall have such other duties as may law.
28 5. Actions of forcible entry and detainer. The superior court has concurrent jurisdiction 6. Proceedings in insolvency. with justices of the peace over misdemeanors where 7. Actions to prevent or abate nuisance. the penalty does not exceed a fine of $300 or im prisonment for six months. The court may issue 8. Matters of probate. all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its 9. Divorce and for annulment of marriage. jurisdiction. Additionally, the superior court has 10. Naturalization and the issuance of papers therefor. appellate jurisdiction in actions appealed from jus 11. Special cases and proceedings not otherwise tices of the peace, inferior courts and boards and provided for, and such other jurisdiction as may be officers from which appeals may, by law, be taken. provided by law. A.R.S. § 12-124.
SUPERIOR COURT STATISTICS
The following statistical tables show the case These types of problems are not unexpected activity of the Arizona Superior Court. The data . when an attempt is made to compile detailed sta reported since 1965 is based on monthly reports tistical data ranging over a long period of time. submitted by the superior courts in each county Through the future publication of reports on an to the Arizona Supreme Court. In addition, total annual basis these types of statistical problems can case filings by county are reported for the years be more easily resolved. 1942 to 1964, with the exceptions of 1947 and 1948 for which data was not readily available. In any event, the available data that is set forth in the following tables demonstrates the tremen The statewide summary tables and the 1965-1976 dous number of legal matters that are presented summary table for each county are simply based to superior court judges each year for resolution on the data reported in the individual tables. The and disposition. The Maricopa and Pima County beginning pending case figures for the 1965-1976 Superior Courts, located in the state's population summary table and the 1965-71 summary table for centers of Phoenix and Tucson respectively, ac each county have not been reported since com count for most of the case load. plete accurate information was not readily available. Based on the reported data for the period 1965 through 1971, Maricopa County received 52.8% In some instances case figures have not been of the new case filings in the state and Pima County included in the tables because the particular court received 23.3% of the new case filings. The Mari did not maintain or report the figures, or the type copa County Superior Court accounted for 54.1 % of case was included in the count for another case of the state's total trial court dispositions for 1965 category. through 1971 and Pima County disposed of 22.8% of the total cases terminated for that same period. Total pending case load figures reported for Cochise and Maricopa Counties are likely to be In 1976, of the 82,038 new cases filed in the somewhat less than what is actually pending due superior court, Maricopa County received 54.9% to the fact that some pending balances for indi and Pima County received 20.5% of that total. In vidual case categories could not be readily deter that same year, 55.9% of the total case dispositions mined. This has resulted in a slight discrepancy in occurred in the Maricopa County Superior Court reported pending case loads in the summary tables and 20.8% of the total case dispositions occurred for these counties. in Pima County Superior Court.
29 SUPERIOR COURT
FILINGS 1942 - 1964*
COUNTY 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1949 195 0 195 1 1952 1953 1954
APA CHE 137 70 63 100 124 164 226 212 23 1 304 260
COCHISE 632 68 4 654 697 827 89 1 4M 59 5 742 763 82 4
COCONINO 25 0 229 20 0 244 357 495 39 1 432 378 53 9 541
GILA 26 4 311 312 347 467 405 392 39 0 467 586 564
GRAHAM 151 194 152 221 332 253 243 22 9 224 241 224
GREENLEE 144 146 119 130 183 177 181 312 243 198 226
MARI COPA 4255 4366 4687 6006 7682 7 890 9094 92 76 9126 10815 12684
MOHA VE 127 104 140 152 208 180 200 199 157 26 1 172
NAVAJO 241 23 0 293 293 530 48 1 462 439 442 453 SSS
P I MA 2462 1541 1636 1962 2888 3447 537 5 4358 5560 4696 4594
PINA L 372 369 32 1 42 4 542 686 938 739 97 8 939 929
SANTA CRUZ 142 12 8 152 141 226 247 26 4 168 177 188 211
YAVAPAI 459 41 9 439 47 3 702 903 797 810 745 1027 918
YUMA 353 409 424 450 501 7 Sl 652 611 813 88 0 786
*Dat a f or 1947 & 1948 wa s not r eadily available.
COUNTY 1955 1956 195 7 1958 1959 196 0 196 1 1962 1963 196 4 TOTAL
APACHE 252 264 215 189 202 22 4 170 170 171 13 9 3887
COCH I SE 850 877 1003 1044 1028 1111 1132 1224 1243 1313 18598
COCONINO 49 1 73 3 71-6 953 766 988 953 1007 107 9 952 12 694
GI LA 658 603 609 823 868 855 642 680 62 1 547 11411
GRAHAM 251 23 0 246 284 23 9 304 285 285 35 1 332 5271
GREENLEE 17 9 187 198 188 157 167 161 137 154 142 3729 ~ · MARICOPA 12997 14741 15697 18350 19492 23 171 24645 25639 26 17 6 28 716 296505
MOHAVE 205 180 189 212 195 238 189 216 309 352 4185
NAVAJO 533 605 735 701 623 726 68 9 762 895 743 11431
PI MA 477 4 6439 66 17 8563 7678 8455 7 507 926 1 9593 7811 115217
PINAL 958 1008 993 1062 1065 1132 1387 162 1 1705 1784 19952 SANTA CRUZ 17 6 17 9 213 268 272 298 269 248 239 170 4376
YAVAPAI 1117 1116 1126 1014 1048 961 947 1020 1073 1014 18128
YUMA 1040 962 1049 1197 17 66 152 1 1503 1315 1477 1437 19900
30 SUPERIOR COtffi.T STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY ...... ·-··------~--·---·-- 7 TERMINATIONS
0 ,...., tl: cv/; .(' (j :..., k ...... , ~ F-., F-., <~ ~ !:/ £1 ,...., C,* 0 \.:.. A., ...., ~ /:; \..:."-; .:,: Fr.I} ~-:;j :,..,,.._, ;j ~ NATURE OF / t: s>~ g· &:t ep ff ~ PROCEEDING 0.0¼~¾~/4#J I APACHE 2,683 386 547 31 1,032 206 24 2,226 700
COCHISE 24,757 4,05'4 2,445 1,919 10,584 2,304 254 21,560 1,148
COCONINO 19,605 2,255 2,297 221 12,033 2,324 262 19,392 1,284
GILA 8,613 1,939 1,633 51 4,076 456 184 8,339 1,443
GRMlAM 5,690 1,043 251 68 2,448 458 32 4.300 1.130
GREENLEE 5.436 602 311 13 4.154 190 26 5 296 252
!'IARICOPA 383,701 121, 81~ 69,746 1,479 il.44,222 23,935 6,889 ~68,085 27,488
MOHAVE 11,757 2,524 2,013 18 5,568 774 123 11,020 1,014
NAVAJO 8,887 1,993 1,694 so 4,191 508 199 8,635 822
PIMA 151,735 30,140 33,507 736 53,075 19,628 3,853 140,939 18,933
PINAL 22,371 2,792 3,009 127 11,808 3,539 341 21,616 1,609
SA NTA CRUZ 12,661 488 454 21 9,230 734 96 11,023 1,915
YAVAPAI 15,292 3,8Q(j 1,852 86 7,217 1,106 295 14,362 1,282 1,815 673 24,617_ 2,494? YIM/\ 25 ·715 5 630 4 505 261 11 711 '---1' ' TO TAL J.._I 698,903 ~,466124,264L 5 , 081 281,371 57,977 13,251 66141,9_&.!..,_5141
31 SUPERIOR COURT STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY 1976 SUMMARY -· I TERMINATIONS
0 '--l t:,: rvll .& !; r:f r,_"1 '-.:.f.-, f.-, 0 ~-~ NATURE OF ~ ?I PROCEEDING .q., t ll0¼ fl 1l;i'l' /2¾~0 ii Ji l /;l APACHE 717 388 37 82 9 226 51 0 405 700
COCH ISE 1,049 2,225 395 244 136 694 463 32 1,964 1,148
COCONINO 1,221 3,206 150 253 4 2,237 475 24 3,143 1,284
GllA 1,310 1,379 284 280 4 591 61 26 1,246 1,443
GRAHAM 1,004 888 160 33 52 469 36 12 762 1,130
GREENLEE 283 512 77 79 1 348 35 3 543 252
MARICOPA 28,249 45,008 14,042 8,067 172 20,002 1 904 619 44 806 ~7,488
MOP.AVE 1,039 1,615 502 317 3 737 53 28 1,640 1,014
ts'AVAJO 733 1,152 227 194 5 528 81 28 1,063 822
PiMA 18,771 16, 819 2,534 3,489 102 6,441 3,673 418 16,657 18,933 I PINAL 1,466 2,689 319 311 21 1,451 416 28 2,546 1,609
SANTA CRUZ 1,556 1,537 147 44 0 892 91 4 1,178 1,915
'lAVAPA I 1,185 1,792 496 206 5 814 148 26 1,695 1 ,282
YUMA 2,157 2,828 368 458 14 1,285 285 81 2,491 2,494
60,740 82,038 19,738 14,057 528 36 , 715 7,772 1, 329 80, 139 61,514 ---TOTAL---- ·
32 SUPERIOR COURT STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY 1975 SUMMARY ~--· - ·- I TERMIN..\TIONS
f.., ~ «;' ;-'\O 0 f-, ~ ~ Al ~/:;' <,C:, .'5:. '-;t,j"\VJ ;,, f-, 0 NATURE OF ~ :; & (:!f:J ~ «;'$ ~~ :,., ~ ~ ff ~ PROCEEDING ~ t: 1 I if et ~#· J l ,. ~~¼~¼~/4/;&', APACHE 667 329 33 71 6 142 26 1 279 717
COCHISE 998 2,527 397 263 201 833 391 24 2,109 1,049
COCONINO 1,082 2,949 155 300 7 1,876 436 36 2,810 1,221
GILA 1,080 1,384 306 221 2 549 62 14 1,154 1,310
GRAtLAM 942 630 169 21 3 305 66 4 568 1,004
GREENLEE 247 534 82 12 2 353 37 12 498 283
VtAR ICOPA 2J, 97 3 48,430 14,084 8,085 150 18,721 1,998 705 43,743 27,657
MOHAVE 924 1,504 437 282 6 613 38 13 1,389 1,039
NAVAJO 633 1,194 232 185 7 559 80 31 1 094 733
PIMA 16,080 16,773 2,774 3,078 81 4 864 2,858 427 14 082 18, 771
PINAL 1,414 2,729 369 338 12 1 462 453 43 2 677 1.466
S,\l·!l'A CRUZ 1,374 1,484 56 25 7 1.105 91 18 1 302 1 556
YAVAPAI 1,288 1,689 495 211 15 899 146 ·26 1 792 1 185
Yl.JMA 1,821 3,000 501 655 5 1,006 418 . 79 2,664 ____2,157 , TOTAL 52,523 85,156 20,090 13,747 504 33,287 7,100 1,433 76, 161 60,1481
33 SUPERIOR COURT STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY 1974 SUMMARY ··-----·····-·-----7-·- -7· I TE~~-!INHI01'1S --
~ ~ ~ ~ .'¾' ~s S.> .<;, ' ✓ f ·, v/ C:/ '-.:f: ~ J: ::j /:; .:::, ·::!/:; .t:,i 'l--0 Q:"-1 ~ ~: NATIIRE OF / ,f '/// , f!ij ,;, ,if /f J: il:,7 .t-f lj f: PROCE ::DlNG ~t{;i ~ / <:i ":> ~l¼~¾i/4}fj f.., o'ji ~ ":> 15' f:., Q~
APACHE 535 317 69 44 1 47 23 1 185 667
COCHISC 1,001 2,236 452 308 128 820 387 30 2,125 998
COCONINO 971 2,147 151 252 5 1,218 387 23 2,036 1,082
GII.A 985 1,249 241 294 7 529 52 31 1,154 1,080
GRAHAM 795 637 126 38 2 269 51 4 490 942
GREENLEE 221 525 68 58 2 350 19 2 499 247
MARI COPA 20,979 47,228 13,051 7,984 190 19,267 2,248 608 43,348 23,973
MOHAVE 839 1,468 413 290 2 663 9 6 1,383 924
,____NAVAJO 535 1,015 207 191 2 449 42 26 917 633 PII:vlA 13,175 16,450 3,120 2,586 60 4 , 740 2,668 371 13,545 16,080
I' INAL 1,286 2,536 295 346 19 1,237 470 41 2,408 1,414
SA.NT;\ CRUZ 1,181 1,592 40 109 2 1,167 74 7 1,399 1,374
YAVAPAI 1,097 1,850 480 200 8 821 102 48 1,659 1,288
Ylil'1A 1,559 2,659 664 481 26 1,029 132 65 2,397 1,821
TOTAL 45,159 81,909 19 377 13 181 454 32,606 6,664 1,263 73,545 52,523
34 SUPERIOR COURT STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY 1973 SUMMARY ·-··-- - ·------
0 . (1 '-.J P:: ;;;-~ !J cJ 4" \..: t; t:., c, ~ ff -'.:> t/7'1//J'¾ONS kl Jl;-0 ~'-.; , / .:;;' § ;..!$' /4 --; NATURE OF .
COCH1SE 837 2 392 342 224 254 1 046 252 18 2 136 1 001
COCONINO 969 1,677 239 196 3 1,033 193 11 1,675 971
GILA 1,169 1,048 188 213 16 746 4C 29 1,232 98~
GRAHAM 662 557 93 16 2 269 41'.i 0 424 795
GREENLEE 212 525 51 30 1 420 14 0 516 221
HARICOPA 19,599 40,100 11,030 6,735 108 16,825 2,875 555 38,128 20,979
~:OHAVE 801 1,284 304 230 2 688 15 7 1 246 839•
NAVAJO 555 908 184 166 1 504 61 12 928 535
PIMA 13,892 14,376 3,204 3,214 69 6,283 1,950 373 15,093 13,175
PINAL 1,125 1,953 106 263 10 893 500 28 1,800 1,278
SAN TA CRUZ 996 1,333 32 36 0 1,000 76 4 1,148 1,181
YAVAPAI 930 1,419 350 166 8 603 87 38 1,252 1,,097
_\'T_l}.fA 1,440 2,397 481 423 170 1,010 124 70 2,278 1,559
TOTAL 43,703 70,215 16,642 Ill 948 646 31 460 6 242 1 145 68 083 45 151
35 SUPERIOR COURT STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY 1972 SUMMARY ----· -- /11~f.-, ....;¼ ;-z0~l{""'~r:1~:- ,__7 4j , rJ 4, ~ /4 /;(j (, .& I \..'. <-" ff ,,,.., .::i ~ {:! (:/ f2 ,:i- (? Q;- A-J ~ ;f NATURE OF ~ !::/ J ~ ;ff' / f_'itf §,J $S1 /; ~ PROCEEDING £:1 r., ") ,S1 ~ I (}$ ~ ") t;: f;; .{.i 1------4------,,---+--4----r-----i~__:::.~;-----+---'-+----..,.----
AI'ACHE 473 219 29 58 1 71 13 4 176 5161
COCIIISE 699 2,051 332 164 224 1,215 149 18 2, 102 83 7
COCONINO 1,048 1,605 253 138 3 1,095 177 18 1,684 969
GILA 1,191 787 195 247 3 308 36 20 809 1,169
GRAHAM 582 523 90 30 2 262 58 1 443 662
GREENLEE 172 432 51 28 2 297 13 1 392 212
MARICOPA 18,130 36,895 10,672 6,482 115 14,076 3,022 514 34,881 19,599
MOHAVE 759 1,272 241 230 2 679 69 9 1,230 801
NAVAJO 541 819 206 142 4 400 41 12 805 555 1 ! i PIMA 12,558 14,004 2,904 3,165 44 4,635 1,548 374 12,670 13,892
PIHAL 1,172 1,730 274 235 6 961 267 34 1,777 1,125
SANTI\ CRUZ 888 1,253 32 30 0 1,016 64 3 1,145 996
YAVAPAI 823 1,237 348 144 2 532 78 26 1,130 930
YUMA 1,828 2,116 482 389 2 1,365 185 81 2 504 1 440
TOTAL 40,864 64,943 16,109 111,482 410 26,912 5,720 1,115 61,748 43,703
36 SUPERIOR COURT STATEWIDE CASE ACTIVITY 1965 - 1971 SUMMARY
T:.-:10!1 NA TI ONS
C..) f.-, '--1 '¾ "'/:l £1 :--,; ' 0' /:.J \!. f.-, f.-, ( ,.:; ✓ "vVJ &/ ,-.., ,._, <' NATURE OF /J rF} '-Jj t IJ# ;-~ ~:;; ~ !$' 4,/1 PRO CE:EDING i/i; / ,1 t: &",,,1-J o ,r;; i;i! ,? ,t'f ·----~.-- ~- . l¼ ~¼~/4 /; APA CHE 1 , 184 180 256 12 406 82 18 954 473
COCHISE 13 , 326 2,136 1 ,242 97 6 5, 976 662 132 11,124 699
COCONINO 8 ,021 1,307 1 , 158 199 4 ,574 656 150 8 ,044 1,048
Gll.A 2 ,766 725 378 19 1 ,353 205 64 2,744 1 , 191
Gfl.A i-L\M 2 455 405 113 7 874 203 11 1 613 582
,; 1<.E:ENLEE 2 908 273 104 5 2 . 386 72 8 2 848 17 2
;-!ARICOPA 166 ,040 58, 93 5 32,393 744 55 ,331 11, 888 3,888 163,179 18, 130
~iOl-lAVE 4, 614 62 7 66 4 3 2,188 590 60 4 , 13 2 759
NAVA.TO 3,799 937 816 31 1 , 751 203 90 3 , 828 541
!>IMA 73,313 15,604 17 ,975 380 26, 112 6 , 925 1, 896 68 , 892 12, 558 ! -P INAL 10, 734 1 ,429 1 , 516 59 5 ,804 1,433 167 10,408 1,172
SANTA CRUZ 5 462 181 210 12 4 .050 338 60 4 85 1 888
YAVAPA I 7 305 1. 637 925 48 3. 548 545 13 1 6 83 4 823
YUMA 12, 715 3, 134 2, 099 44 6 ,038 671 297 12,283 1 ,828
314, 642 87 ,510 59 , 849 2 , 53 9 24, 47 3 6, 97 2 301 ,734 TO TAL ----- !1 20 ,39 1 140 ,864
37 APACHE COUNTY
1965 - 1976 SUMMARY
~ NATURE OF fj PROCEEDING f::;
CIVIL 701 132 312 28 34 100 18 624 149 DOMESTIC REI.ATIONS 536 254 150 3 5 97 1 510 15 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 136 41 41 149
JUVENILE 509 338 338 216
ADOPTION 208 185 185 37 MENTAL HEALTH 10 10 10 0
PROBATE 274 221 221 119
FELONY (3) 204 42 154 3 5 204 0 MIS DEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 105 43 44 6 0 93 15
TOTAL 2,683 386 547 31 1 1,032 206 24 2,226 TOO
(1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for non-prosecution.
(2) Represents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal support,juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate categories; represents Plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories.
(3) Statistics represent number of defendants.
38 APACHE COUNTY 197 6
NATURE OF PROCEEDING t ' I - 5) t f. ' gr CIVIL f 1281 10 3f 45 r 91 J 181 ~( 82 I 149 DOME STIC RELATIONS I 27 1 711 28 1 231 OI 01 32 1 01 83 I 15 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 144 34 29 29 149
JUVENILE 257 102 143 143 216
ADOPTION 34 15 12 12 37 MENTAL HEALTH 0 . I 0 PROBATE 107 2:1 I I I ul I 1: I ll9 FELONY (3) I 71 281 I 71 I 271 1 1 I 35 I 0 MI SDEM EANOR/ APPEA LS (31 10 I 15 13 1 121 I TOTAL 717 388 37 I 8: I 91 22: I 51 1 o I 405 I 700
APACHE COUNTY
1975 - -
~ ! CIVIL I ll21 831 10 I 39 4 13 0 67 128 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 21 1 571 23 I 131 21 01 13 I o I 511 27 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 122 23 1 1 144 JUVENILE 253 71 67 67 257 ADOPTION 44 17 27 27 34 MENTAL HEALTH 0 1 1 0 PROBATE 96 30 19 1: I 107 FELONY (3) 10 35 12 25 0 1 38 I 7 MISDEMEANOR / APPEALS (3 9 12 7 1 ol o I 8 ! 13 I ITOTAL 66 7 329 33 71 6 142 26 I 1 l 27 9 I 717 NOTE: Footnotes follow Apache County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 39 APACHE COUNTY 1974 NATURE OF PROCEEDING t ' -q t { ' 2J 26 ( 68 112 CIVIL f 911 89f r J s 171 ~ I DOMESTIC REI.A TI ONS I 201 631 46 I 101 ol ol 6I o I 62 I 21 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 104 25 7 7 122 JUVENILE 195 62 4 4 253 ADOPTION 28 27 11 11 44 MENTAL HEALTH 0 0 0 0 0 PROBATE 82 25 11 11 96 FELONY (3) 10 19 5 13 1 19 10 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (31 I -9 TOTAL 53:1 31: I 691 4: I 11 471 231 1 I 18: I 667 APACHE COUNTY 1973 NATURE OF PROCEEDING t l I ~ l I CIVIL f 561 nf 8 f 211 21 or 51 ·: r 361 91 DOMESTIC REI.A TI ONS I 23 1 451 30 I 121 ol ol 6I o I 48 I 20 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 90 14 0 0 104 JUVENILE 233 54 92 92 195 ADOPTION 25 15 12 12 28 MENTAL HEALTH 0 1 1 1 0 PROBATE 84 22 24 24 82 FELONY (3) 3 18 1 10 11 10 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS 01 21 6 2 1 I 3 I 5 I ITOTAL I 5161 246 38 36 2 140 ul 0 227 i 535 NOTE: Footnotes follow Apache County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 40 APACHE COUNTY 1972 !J' ?;, NATURE OF et,' ~ PROCEEDING ~ ~ - c--, ~ CIVIL 41 1 5 5 3 57 56 DOMESTIC RELATIONS! 201 sol 27 I 91 ol 21 81 1 I 47 I 23 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 64 30 4 4 90 JUVENILE 213 28 8 8 233 ADOPTION 21 18 14 14 25 MENTAL HEALTH 0 0 0 0 PROBATE 74 26 16 1: I 84 FELONY (3) 2 24 5 18 23 I 3 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (31 I 2 TOTAL 47~ I 21:1 29 I 5:1 11 7:1 131 41 17: I 516 i( APACHE COUNTY 1965 - 1971 SUMMARY vj ~0 .:::;-t; ,..., ~~ ~ 0~ "-1 NATURE OF "-II 'l;'::)& '-Ji ~ §'~ ;:; t: il§ vj $# e~ 12 PROCEEDING I I .<::) '-, ~ ~ ti'!J F.:, CIVIL I I 3181 80 I 140 11 26 42 15 314 76 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I I 2501 100 I 831 11 31 321 o I 219 I 20 RECIPROCAL I SUPPORT 10 0 o I 64 JUVENILE 192 24 213 241 ADOPTION 116 109 109 21 MENTAL HEALTH 8 8 8 0 PROBATE 148 140 140 74 FELO NY (3) 80 12 61 2 3 78 2 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 62 21 35 61 o I 62 I 3 I TOTAL 1 184 180 256 12 406 82 I 18 I 9541 473 NOTE : Footnotes follow Apache County 1965 -1976 Summary Table. 41 COCHISE COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY 'y NATURE OF ,...; / ~· ~/ ~· / ~ j ~i a / ~ ~/ ~ ~ / N PROCEEDING t: $ I: ~• g £,L0' &jj $~ ~ CIVIL 4,811, 1,0391 7181 5701 1,5161 7561 79 1 4,6781 65 DOMESTIC REI..ATIONS 6,166 3,015 9791 2751 4081 1, 4121 i I 6,0901 32 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT N/ 1, 32 31 I 970 9701 JUVENILE (4)1 I 3,117 I I 1,525 1 I I 1,525 N/A ADOPTION 1,534 1 1,3421 I I 1 . 343 I N/A MENTAL HEALTH I 619 581 N/A I 581 I 3,637 2,897 2,897 N/A PROMTE l FELONY (3) 2,906 516 972 1,113 40 145 2,786 I 155 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 644 232 101 232 96 29 690 a 12 TOTAL I I 24,757 4. 054 I 2. 445 1,919 10,584 2,304 254 21 560 1 1 (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for non-prosecution. (2) Represents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal support, juvenile , adoption, me ntal health and probate categories; represents Plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories. (3) Statistics represent number of defendants. (4) Does not include statistics for 1965-1967, or 1974-1976, as data i s not readily availabl e. (5) Pending balances for reciprocal support, juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate not reported as accurate data was not readily available. Total pending figures shown represent onlv the total of pending figures reported and therefore are likely to be less than actual total pendings. N/A - Data Not Available. 42 COCHISE COUNTY 1976 -- f; !J ~ A..,~ ~G/J!,J ,:::!(:;-A NATURE OF #/ § I ~ /::/ t;~ cf, PROCEEDING ,tt5) .c., -<:) ._, tS' CIVIL I 5841 5101 961 491 401 1551 931 91 442 I 65 DOME STIC RELATIONS I 352 846 299 128 61 41 3401 ol 869 I 329 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT N/A 180 113 113 N/A JUVENILE I N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ADOPTION N/A 111 107 107 N/A MENTAL HEALTH I N/A 42 39 39 N/A PROBATE I N/A 206 118 118 N/A FELONY (3) I 103 295 53 31 113 23 23 243 155 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 10 35 I 14 4 8 7 0 33 12 TOTAL 1,049 2,225 3951 244 136 694 463 32 1,964 1,148 COCHISE COIBHY 1975 NATURE OF PROCEEDING . I -!::Ji t ,..., I I . ,- / CIVIL f s~:l 58J 90 f 6J 781 1891 96 l 71 s2J 584 DOMESTIC REl.A TI ONS I 345 I 8141 307 I 1301 551 401 275 1 o I 807 I 352 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I N/A 339 96 96 N/A JUVENILE I N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A ADOPTION N/A 142 1 125 126 N/A MENTAL HEALTH N/A 35 32 32 N/A PROBATE N/A 246 141 141 N/A FELONY (3) 120 316 56 62 194 4 17 333 103 MISDEMEANOR APPEALS (3 8 52 13 5 16 16 0 50 10 TOTAL 998 2,527 397 263 201 833 391 24 2,109 1,049 NOTE : Footnotes follow Cochise County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 43 COCHISE COUNTY 1974 NATURE OF PROCEEDING ,-, CIVIL 530 525 4931 1081 1051 4981 DOMESTIC 981 711 llOI REl.A TIONS 308 793 344 99 22 25 266 :1 756 345 RECIPROCAL I SUPPORT N/A 163 167 167 N/ JUVENILE I N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ ADOPTION N/A 121 ll2 ll2 N/A MENTAL HEALTH I N/A 38 37 37 N/A N/A 229 121 PROMTE I 121 N/A FELONY (3) 137 351 71 29 246 1 21 368 120 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 26 48 I I 40 I 6 I 7 I 10 I 31 ~ TOTAL I 1,001 I 2,236 I 452 I 308 I 128 I 320 I 387 I 30 I 2,125 998 COCHISE COUNTY 1973 '--J NATURE OF ~· if [J ,! 12 PROC EEDING ~ . , - CIVIL 78 25 83 1 383 530 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 21+7 I 6141 268 I 7 5 I 41 53 I 153 I o I 553 I 308 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT N/A ll9 127 127 N/A JUVENILE N/A 232 276 276 N/A ADOPTION N/A ll8 105 105 , N/A MENTAL HEALTH N/A 39 38 38 N/A PROBATE N/A 287 157 157 N/A FELO NY (3) 71 505 56 203 160 4 16 439 137 MIS DEMEA NOR/ APPEALS (3 28 56 15 22 8 12 1 58 26 TOTAL 837 2,392 342 224 254 1,046 252 18 2,136 1,001 NOTE: Footnotes follow Cochise County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 44 COCHISE COUNTY 1972 NATURE OF PROCEEDING -, CIVIL f 4261 3641 671 521 171 1101 441 9 I 2991 49 DOMESTIC REIATIONS 184 5361 2651 701 SI 401 931 01 473 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT N/A 96 71 71 N/ JUVENILE N/A 208 395 395 N/A ADOPTION N/A 127 111 111 N/A MENTAL HEALTH I N/A 38 29 29 N/A N/A 273 325 PROBATE I 325 N/A FELONY (3) 59 361 27 194 120 0 8 349 71 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 30 48 15 8 14 12 TOTAL I 699 2,051 332 164 224 1,215 149 I 18 I 2, 102 I 837 COCHISE COUNTY 1965 - 1971 SUMMARY NATURE OF PROCEEDING I I , I ' I I ~ ,-.. I I , --,, I I ' \_, CIVIL 2,439 604 377 339 835 330 47 2. 532 I 426 DOMESTIC REIATIONS 2 , 563 1,532 477 128 209 285 1 2,632 I 184 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 426 I I I 396 I I I 396 I N/A N/A JUVENILE (4) I , 2,6771 8541 8541 ADOPTION 915 I I I 78 2 I I 782 N/A MENTAL HEALTH 427 406 406 N/A PROBATE 2,396 2,035 2,035 N/A FELONY (3) 1,078 253 453 280 8 60 1 , 054 59 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 405 135 56 179 39 24 433 I 30 TOTAL 13,326 2,136 1,242 976 5,976 662 132 11,124 I 699 NOTE: Footnotes follow Cochise County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 45 COCONINO COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY NATURE OF PROCEEDING CIVIL 3,8201 646 649 1151 1,3891 812 105 3,716 355 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 3,6991 1,609 500 31 I 237 1,312 0 3,689 100 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 1,023 4 988 992 52 JUVENILE (4) 5,042 5,072 5,072 22 ADOPTION 731 14 I 761 775 97 MENTAL HEALTH 381 23 I 380 403 3 PROBATE 1,730 281 1,676 1,704 451 FELONY (3) 2,425 711 1,344 99 140 2,294 160 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 754 437 61 186 101 17 747 44 TOTAL 19,6051 2,255 I 2,297 221 ll2 tQ33 l 2,324 262 I 19,3~284 (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for non-prosecution. (2) Represents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal support, juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate categories; represents Plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories. (3) Statistics represent number of defendants. (4) Does not include statistics for 1965 - 1967 as Juvenile statistics were not reported separately prior to 1968. 46 COCONINO COUNTY 1976 t7 ?;, NATURE OF ~ PROCEEDING ~ <"y CIVIL 347 413 54 80 4 97 158 12 405 35 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 108 431 96 52 0 111 2801 01 439 I 10 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 106 128 182 182 5 JUVENILE 7 1,476 1,461 1,461 22 ADOPTION 78 69 so so 97 MENTAL HEALTH 3 181 201 20 I PROBATE I 41:1 117 I I I 81 I I 81 45 FELO NY (3) 122 430 82 2781 201 12 I 392 I 16 MI SDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 33 124 39 57 17 0 113 TOTAL 1,221 3,206 1so I 253 4 2,237 475 24 3,143 ( 1, 28 COCONINO COUNTY 1975 '--1 NATURE OF ~ PROCEEDING Ill ~ I $~-~1 ;· I E /t;~! I 12 CIVIL 3981 621 1091 891 1261 4 396 347 3451 61 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 94 4491 931 441 11 101 2871 01 4351 108 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 168 124 124 I 106 621 JUVENILE 19 1,230 1,242 1, 2421 7 ADOPTION I 721 65 59 59 78 MENTAL HEALTH I 4 5 181 171 171 PROBATE 371 115 I I I 71 I I 71 415 FELONY (3) 90 4251 I 1001 I 2521 111 30 I 393 I 122 MISDEMEANOR / APPEALS (3 25 81 47 12 12 2 73 33 TOTAL 1,082 2,949 155 300 7 1,876 436 36 2,810 1,221 NOTE : Footnotes follow Coconino County 1965 - 1976 Summar y Table . 47 COCONINO COUNTY 1974 NATURE OF PROCEEDING l ~ I £ ,;-., I I ~ -:09r CIVIL f 2991 407f 46 f 8J 21 1041 12 I 3611 34 DOMESTIC : RELATIONS I 1111 3981 105 I 511 31 141 2421 ol 415 I 9 RECIPROCAL I SUPPORT 46 120 104 104 6 JUVENILE 13 633 627 627 1 ADOPTION 59 66 53 53 7 MENTAL HEALTH 2 36 34 34 PROBATE 362 88 79 79 37 FELONY (3) 63 344 93 184 29 11 317 9 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 16 55 20 14 12 0 46 2 252 23 2,036 TOTAL 971 2,147 151 5 11218 387 - 1108 COCONINO COUNTY 1973 - - ,...,C, tj~1/:~$ {::! !J q NATURE OF c$' PROCEEDING ~ I ,:;:,t:7!! ~ 1j Ill ( CIVIL I 2611 3121 41 I 33r 3r ~30r 631 4 r 2741 29 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 1061 3761 1981 391 01 271 1071 01 371 I 111 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I 45 114 113 113 461 JUVENILE 10 405 402 402 13 ADOPTION 54 55 50 50 59; MENTAL HEALTH 3 24 25 25 2 PROBATE 372 137 147 147 362 FELONY (3) 79 196 79 117 9 7 212 63 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 39 58 45 22 14 0 811 161 TOTAL 969 1,677 239 196 3 1,033 193 11 1,6751 971~ NOTE: Footnotes follow Coconino County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 48 COCONINO COUNTY 1972 NATURE OF PROCEEDING l ~ - s:i · {. l c-, I ' CIVIL f 2211 31J 47 f 30r 3( 101! 871 61 274 r '26 DOMESTIC REIATIONS I ll81 3331 206 I 46 I ol 201 731 ol 345 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 57 93 105 105 4 JUVENILE 10 338 338 338 1 ADOPTION 57 56 59 59 5 MENTAL HEALTH 1 29 27 27 3 PROBATE 505 170 303 303 372 FELO NY (3) 63 194 28 131 8 ll 178 7 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 16 78 34 ll 9 1 55 3 TOTAL 1,048 1,605 2531 138 3 1,095 177 18 1,684 969, I I• COCONINO COUNTY I_ 1965 - 1971 SUMMARY NATURE OF PROC EED ING ,.., CIVIL 1,976 396 309 97 863 274 67 2,006 221 DOMESTIC RELA TIONS 1, 7121 9ll I 268 1 271 1551 323 1 01 1,684 I ll8 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 4001 I I 41 3601 I I 364 I 57 JUVENILE ( 4) 9601 I I I 1, 0021 1,002 I 10 ADOPTION 4201 I I 14 I 490 I I 504 ft 57 MENTAL HEALTH 1 2561 23 25 7 280 I PROBATE 1,103 28 995 1,023 505 FELONY (3) 836 329 382 22 69 802 63 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 358 252 6 70 37 14 379 16 TOTAL 8,021 1,307 1,158 199 4,574 656 150 8,044 1,048 NOTE: Footnotes follow Coconino County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 49 GIIA COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY (4) NATURE OF PROCEEDING CIVIL 1,4321 302 524 34 28 224 34 1,146 442 DOMESTIC REIATIONS 2,2751 1,637 446 5 11 12 3 0 2,222 82 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 560 574 574 106 JUVENILE (5) 598 732 732 178 ADOPTION 311 337 337 49 MENTAL HEALTH 155 160 160 0 PROBATE 1,403 1,376 1,376 421 FELONY (3) 1,382 416 11 733 55 94 1,309 130 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 497 247 1 125 54 56 483 35 TOTAL 8,6131 1,939 I 1,633 511 4,076 456 184 8,33911,443 (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for non-prosecution. (2) Represents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal support, juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate categories; represents Plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories. (3) Statistics represent number of defendants. (4) Does not include statistics for 1969 and 1970 which are not readily available for purpose of this report. (5) Juvenile statistics not reported separately prior to 1971. 50 GIIA COUNTY 1976 NATURE OF PROCEEDING CIVIL 407 2361 491 851 41 221 361 SI 2011 442 DOMESTIC RElATIONS 108 305 235 64 0 11 21 0 3311 82 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 81 117 92 921 106 JUVENILE 147 155 124 1241 178 ADOPTION 32 37 20 20 49 MENTAL HEALTH 1 20 21 21 0 PROBATE 378 116 73 73 421 FELONY (3) I 1291 3491 I 1051 I 220 1 41 19 I 348 I 130 MI SDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 27 44 26 8 0 2 36 35 TOTAL 1,310 1,379 2841 280 4 591 61 26 1,246 1,443 GILA COUNTY !O 1975 .& NATURE OF I 1$' PROCEEDING .Q.,~ CIVIL I ~311 40 I 61 I 11 01 21 1 1 I 124 I 407 DOMESTIC RElATIONS I 99 1 347 I 266 I 37 I 11 01 34 1 o I 338 I 108 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I 76 92 87 87 I 81 JUVENILE 128 136 117 117 I 147 ADOPTION 21 30 19 19 ff 32 MENTAL HEALTH 0 21 20 20 I 1 PROBATE 346 124 92 92 I 37 8 FELONY (3) I 951 326 I I 84 I I 192 I 41 12 I 292 I 129 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3j 15 77 39 22 3 1 65 27 TOTAL I 1.080 1,384 306 221 2 549 62 14 1 154 1,310 NOTE : Footnotes follow Gila County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 51 GILA COUNTY 1974 NATURE OF (::;1 PROCEEDING 4, § ~ CIVIL 224 4 22 3 300 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 1051 3191 224 1 761 2 1 01 231 01 3251 99 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 65 69 58 58 76 JUVENILE 128 113 113 113 128 ADOPTION 27 23 29 29 21 MENTAL HEALTH 0 27 27 0 271 PROBATE 356 113 123 123 346 FELONY (3) 54 257 66 1 139 2 8 216 I 95 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 56 1041 I 81 39 5 20 145 I 15 TOTAL 985 1,2491 2411 294 7 529 52 31 1,154 h,080 GILA COUNTY 1973 - - ~ ---.. cJ 0 0~ "Y "I ~ NATURE OF (::;1 r,,"'.2} ~~~ $I if 4, I ~'") !J ~ 12 PROCEEDING I~.ti I A::) t;;; CIVIL I 1361 1661 181 67 3 2 18 0 108 194 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 991 2561 170 I 65 1 21 01 131 01 250 I 105 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 50 66 51 51 65 JUVENILE 339 72 283 283 12 8 ADOPTION 19 31 23 23 27 MENTAL HEALTH 0 25 25 25 0 PROBATE 485 126 255 255 356 FELONY (3) 26 199 53 10 87 7 14 171 54 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 15 107 28 1 20 21 15 661 56 I TOTAL 1,169 1,048 188 213 16 746 401 29 1,232 I 985 NOTE: Footnotes follow Gila County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 52 GllA COUNTY 1972 NATURE OF PROCEEDING t CIVIL f 1471 157f 291 1061 31 31 221 SI 168 I 136 DOMESTIC RElATIONS I 114 232 166 72 0 0 9 0 247 I 99 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 44 60 54 50 541 JlNENILE 321 52 34 34 339 ADOPTION 23 261 I I I 301 I I 3o 1 19 MENTAL I HEALTH 0 19 19 19 I 0 PROBATE 488 133 136 485 1361 FELONY (3) 40 69 47 28 1 7 83 26 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 14 39 22 4 4 8 38 15 TOTAL 1. 191 787 195 247 3 308 36 20 809 1,169 GilA COUNTY 1965 - 1971 SUMMARY (4) NATURE OF PROCEEDING t I - Sl ' '-'f £ < CIVIL f I 418f 149 f :3J 191 of 10sl 20 I 427 I 147 DOMESTIC RElATIONS 816 576 132 0 0 23 0 7 31 I 114 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 156 232 232 44 JlNENILE (5) 70 61 61 321 ADOPTION 164 216 216 23 MENTAL HEALTH 0 431 481 481 PROBATE I I 791 I I I 697 I I 697 488 FELONY (3) I I 1821 I 611 I 671 37 I 34 I 199 I 40 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 126 51 32 401 10 133 14 I TOTAL 2,766 725 378 19 1,353 2051 64 2,744 1,191 NOTE: Footnotes follow Gila County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 53 GRAHAM COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY( 4) TERMINATIONS C, f.,!;/~ tv& I::;,~ '-.'.S NATURE OF c$' PROCEEDING ~ CIVIL 1,0391 209 105 161 554 381' 2041 DOMESTIC 1: I RELATIONS 1,4751 834 48 OI :1 225 1,108 309 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 250 119 119 121 JUVENILE 1,003 892 892 9 ADOPTION 240 205 205 29 ENTAL HEALTH 95 93 93 0 PROBATE 734 580 580 107 FELONY (3) 196 19 121 4 12 156 38 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 658 79 52 I 431 25 6 593 51 TOTAL 5,690 I 1. 043 251 68 I 2,448 458 32 4,300 1,130 (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for non-prosecution. (2) Represents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal support, juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate categories; represents Plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories . ( 3 ) Statistics represent number of defendants. (4) Does not include statistics for 1965 as they were not readily available; also does not include 1966 statistics for reciprocal support, juvenile adoption, mental health or probate, which also were not readily available. 54 GRAHAM COUNTY 1976 NATURE OF PROCEEDING CIVIL 327 106 21 17 0 1 10 3 52 38 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 283 191 139 4 0 0 22 0 165 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 100 34 13 13 12 JUVENILE 84 341 331 331 ADOPTION 33 27 31 31 MENTAL HEALTH 0 0 0 0 PROBATE 75 63 31 31 FELONY (3) 3 ,'cll2 7 58 3 9 77 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 99 14 5 52 4 1 0 62 TOTAL 1,004 888 160 33 52 469 36 12 762 *Includes 52 cases previously reported in the misdemeanor/lower court appeal category. GRAHAM COUNTY 1975 0 ~ ~ I ~ t:-1 f,3 18~ NATURE OF ~ :,.., I '--l t/ ~~ ~ PROCEEDING ~ "if:! ~ CIVIL 302 87 18 9 3 0 30 2 62 327 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 281 194 151 6 0 1 34 0 192 283 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 89 40 29 29 100 JUVENILE 69 128 113 113 84 ADOPTION 21 29 17 17 33 MENTAL HEALTH 0 3 3 3 0 PROBATE 89 54 68 68 75 FELONY (3) 3 5 1 4 0 0 5 3 MISDEMEANOR/ APPF.ALS (3 88 90 5 70 2 2 79 99 TOTAL 942 630 169 21 3 305 66 4 568. 1,00 NOTE : Footnotes follow Graham County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 55 GRAHAM COUNTY 1974 NATURE OF PROCEEDING ~ C'f ~ CIVIL 276 89 19 15 2 1 25 1 63 302 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 208 207 107 4 0 0 231 01 134 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 71 24 6 6 JUVENILE 63 102 96 961 6 ADOPTION 27 22 28 28 MENTAL HEALTH 0 4 4 4 PROBATE 76 82 69 I 69 FELONY (3) 6 2 0 3 0 2 I 5 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 68 105 19 62 3 1 85 I 8 TOTAL 795 637 1261 38 2 269 51 4 490 GRAHAM COUNTY 1973 E., :; ~ $1& ---..q NATURE OF 15' ~§ 11 ~ ~") ~ PROCEEDING <:I, ½-<:) CIVIL 212 106 19 5 2 0 16 0 42 276 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 167 151 74 8 0 0 28 0 110 208 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 59 25 13 13 71 JUVENILE 65 47 49 49 63 ADOPTION 19 35 27 27 27 MENTAL HEALTH 0 4 4 4 PROBATE 72 104 100 100 76 FELONY (3) 8 4 0 6 0 0 6 6 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 60 81 3 70 0 0 73 68! TOTAL 662 557 93 16 2 269 44 0 424 79 NOTE: Footnotes follow Graham County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 56 GRAHAM COUNTY 1972 NATURE OF PROCEEDING ~ - c--., ~ CIVIL 177 101 28 10 2 0 25 1 66 212 DOMESTIC REI.A TI ONS 143 120 621 SI 01 01 291 01 96 I 167 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I 50 35 26 5 261 JUVENILE I 66 77 78 78 6 AOOPTION 16 19 16 16 ENTAL I HEALTH 0 15 15 151 PROBATE 65 83 76 I I 76 FELONY (3) 9 4 0 41 11 OI 5 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 56 69 15 47 3 0 65 6 TOTAL 582 523 90 3(} 2 262 58 1 443 662 GRAHAM COUNTY 1965 - 1971 SUMMARY(4) "-1 NATURE OF ;;1 ~· ;:; 4, !J 12 PROCEEDING ~ ~ CIVIL 550 104 49 7 4 98 7 269 177 DOMESTIC REI.A TI ONS I I 6121 3011 211 ol ol 891 01 411 I 143 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 92 32 32 50 JUVENILE 308 225 225 66 AOOPTION 108 86 86 16 MENTAL HEALTH 69 67 67 0 PROBATE 348 236 236 65 FELONY (3) 69 11 46 0 1 58 9 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS 3 299 32 178 16 3 229 56 TOTAL 2,455 405 113 7 874 203 11 1,613 582 NOTE: Footnotes follow Graham County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 57 GREENLEE COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY NATURE OF PROCEEDING CIVIL 425 68 84 11 147 54 12 376 76 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 894 534 184 1 58 118 0 895 25 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 135 124 124 12 JUVENILE 2,928 2,919 2,919 9 ADOPTION 244 239 239 50 MENTAL HEALTH 74 67 67 12 PROBATE 488 432 432 68 FELONY (3) 210 28 1 148 16 14 207 0 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 38 15 20 2 0 37 0 TOTAL 5,436 602 311 131 4,154 190 26 5,296 252 (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for non-prosecution. (2) Represents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal support, juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate categories; represents Plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories. (3) Statistics represent number of defendants. 58 GREENLEE COUNTY 1976 ~ NATURE OF I ~~ PROCEEDING -.Q,. CIVIL I 65 I 391 21 191 01 01 SI 2 I 281 7 DOMESTIC REIATIONS I 59 1201 1s I 491 11 71 22 1 01 154 I 25 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 21 18 27 2 7 I 12 JUVENILE 13 249 253 9 2531 ADOPTION 51 13 14 14 so MENTAL HEALTH 11 1 0 0 12 PROBATE 56 25 13 13 68 FELONY (3) I 3 41 8 27 8 1 44 0 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALST, 41 6 I I 3 1 I 7 I OI o I 10 I 0 TOTAL 283 I 512 I 77 I 79 I 11 348 I 35 I 3 I 543 I 252 GREENLEE COUNTY 1975 ':-,~ NATURE OF ;;; I ~'y 3/<:!1f I ff~ /4~;;, / §1/i ~ ~; ~ PROCEEDING I~,ti $ t;$ $ g ,!,! e~$ $~ t CIVIL 55 40 10 2 2 6 8 1 2 I 30 I 65 DOMESTIC RELATIONS so 108 72 2 0 2 23 0 59 RECIPROCAL 9: SUPPORT 9 19 7 I 21 JUVENILE 23 271 28 1 281 I 13 ADOPTION I so 23 I I I I 22 I I I 22 a ' 51 MENTAL HEALTH I 10 1 0 0 11 PROBATE 38 31 13 13 56 FELONY (3) I 7 37 4 21 6 10 41 3 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 5 4 4 1 0 o I 5 ~ 4 TOTAL 247 534 82 12 2 353 37 12 l 498 I 283 NOTE : Footnotes follow Greenlee County 1965 - 1976 Sunnnary Ta ble. 59 GREENLEE COUNTY 1974 NATURE OF PROCEEDING l ' I ~ Sl {. l c-., I ' CIVIL f 541 4J 6r 2J 11 121 51 1 I 47r 5 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 50 50 1091 1091 RECIPROCAL 621 271 01 131 0 I SUPPORT 10 18 1:1 19 9 JUVENILE 16 2251 I I I 2181 I I 218 I 23 ADOPTION 50 471 MENTAL 3:1 3:1 3: HEALTH 10 I I I I I I 10 PROBATE 38 351 231 231 2: I FELO NY (3) 42 I 61 11 31 ol 1 I 39 7 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (31 5 TOTAL 22: I 52: I 681 5:1 21 35:1 1:1 : I 49: I 247 GREENLEE COUNTY 1973 11 t;, .:::: NATURE OF ~ · if"' ~ 12 PROCEEDING ~ ~ CIVIL 3 4 1 15 4 0 27 54 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 51 I 841 48 I 231 01 td 101 o I 85 I 50 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 8 9 7 7 10 JUVENILE 17 300 301 301 16 ADOPTION 52 25 30 30 47 MENTAL HEALTH 9 6 5 5 10 PROBATE 24 46 44 44 26 FELONY (3) 3 13 1 11 0 0 12 4 MIS DEMEA NOR/ APPEALS (3 6 3 2 3 0 o I 5 I 4 TOTAL 212 525 51 30 1 420 14 o I 516 I 221 NOTE : Footnotes follow Greenlee County 1965 - 1976 Sunnnary Table . 60 GREENLEE COUNTY 1972 NATURE OF PROCEEDING CIVIL 41 39 10 I 7 I 21 101 BI i I 38 I 42 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 43 74 41 20 0 0 5 0 66 I 51 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 3 12 7 7 I 8 JUVENILE 9 221 213 17 2131 ADOPTION 45 28 21 21 52 ENTAL HEALTH I 9 PROBATE I 1: I 3: I I I I 3: I I I 3: I 24 FELONY (3) I 1 I 14 I I 11 I 111 ol o I 12 I 3 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (31 2 I I DI I 11 0I o I 1 I 6 TOTAL 17: I 432 I 51 I 2s I 2 I 297 I 13 I 1 I 392 I 212 GREENLEE COUNTY 1965 - 1971 SUMMARY - - V) NATURE OF ::;1 ~~~ t ~s;:;,l/ ~. /4 '¾<3~/ /1~., 1/ ~"-lI ,S 4, t;!J ~ r;f (!jtJ:, e~ /1~ a PROCEEDING I~.ti I ~ i? l:;i ~ £-, ,V:J .... " ~ R:, CIVIL 220 37 206 I 41 DOMESTIC 30 I 1041 241 RELATIONS 399 236 63 :1 38 45 : I 3s2 I 43 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 59 57 5 7 I 3 JUVENILE I I 1,662 1 ,653 1,653 I 9 ADOPTION 120 120 120 ~ 45 MENTAL HEALTH 57 53 53 9 PROBATE 312 308 308 16 FELO NY (3) 63 8 47 2 2 59 1 MISDEMEANOR/ APPF.ALS (3j I 16 3 6 1 0 10 ~ 5 TOTAL I I 2,908 273 104 5 2,386 72 8 2,848 I 172 NOTE: Footnotes follow Greenlee County 1965 - 1976 Surrnnary Table . 61 MARICOPA COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY NATURE OF PROCEEDING , I , . I I r.. I I ,.., I , ,- CIVIL 179,033 47,059 23,996 1,411 *85, 78~ 9,886 3,573 171,710 18,566 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 106,023 74,755 15,731 66 6,928 6,966 10 104,456 4,703 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 2,262 0 17 0 1,537 0 0 1,554 JUVENILE 18,292 14,624 14,6241 N/ 3,236 N/ ADOPTION I I 3,557 3,236 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 108 0 0 0 0 10 PROBATE N/A 2 'j N/AI N/ FELO NY (3) 43,920 0 12,089 0 26,18 847 2,951 42,071 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (4 30,506 0 17,913 0 5,920 6,23 355 30,424 TOTAL 383,701 21,814 69,746 1 , 479 44,222 23,935 6,889 368,085 *Includes 1,251 cases terminated by compulsory arbitration. (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for nonprosecution. (2) Represents final order dispositions for reciprocal support, juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate categories; represents plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories. (3) Statistics represent number of defendants. (4) Statistics represent number of defendants; also includes paternity and unclassified criminal cases. (5) Pending balances for juvenile and adoption categories not reported, as accurate data was not available. Total pending figures shown represent only the total of pending figures reported and therefore are likely to be less than actual total pendings. N/A - Data Not Available. 62 MARICOPA COUNTY 1976 C, ~ f; ~ t--1(,j \....:s,:::;,,~ NATURE OF -4,f:/ ~ PROCEEDING I~~(5) ~ CIVIL 18,890 18,669 3,897 3,039 170 ~10, 90 6911 29~ 18,993 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 5,580 12,725 10,145 1,725 80 923 ,,. ,o, RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 592 2,262 17 1,537 1,554 JUVENILE I N/A 3,303 2,443 12' 443 I N/ ADOPTION N/A 647 544 I N/ MEDICAL 54:1 MALPRACTICE 0 108 2 I I 10 PROBATE N/A I N/AI I I I N/A I N/ FELONY (3) 2, 711 5,218 1,758 3' 4031 691 3031 5,533 I 2,396 MISDEMEANOR I APPEALS (4 476 2,076 1,528 359 1 2211 191 2,127 I 425 TOTAL 28,249 45,008 14,042 8,067 172 20,0021 lt904I 6191 44, 806127 ,488 >', Includes 797 cases terminated by compulsory arbitration. MARICOPA COUNTY 197 5 NATURE OF PROCEEDING ,.., CIVIL 15,829 21,260 4,870 2,107 146 10,211 627 23 18,199 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 5,124 12,200 9,214 1 1,4101 41 504 1 612 1 DI 11 , 144 I s, 580 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT N/A N/ A N/A N/A JUVENILE N/A 3,784 2,877 2,877 N/A ADOPTION N/A 788 692 692 N/A MENTAL HEALTH I N/A N/A N/AI N/A I N/A I I I I I I N/A N/A PROBATE I N/A FELONY (3) 2,543 6,749 2,405 3,637 107 432 6,581 2,711 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS ( 4 477 3,649 2,163 800 652 35 3,650 476 TOTAL 123, 973 I 48,430 14,084 8,085 150 18,721 1,9981 705 43,743 27,657 * Includes 435 cases terminated by compulsory arbitration. NOTE: Footnotes follow Maricopa County 1965 - 1976 Summar y Table. N/A Data Not Available. 63 MARICOPA COUNTY 1974 NATURE OF PROCEEDING ---E'---11-(___ , __ ,<...-4('---~ ~{'---~1~-...:S>>.L- ,r I • * CIVIL u,o39 119,o7614,oo9 1 2,096 1 144 18 ,910 1 844 1 233l 16,286h5,829 DOMESTIC RElATIONS 4,794 12,145 9,042 1,491 46 5641 672 1 OI 11,8151 5,124 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT N/A N/A N/A N/A JUVENILE I N/A 4,018 3,184 3,184 N/A ADCPTION N/A 743 691 691 N/A ME~~iTH I N/A I N/AI I I I I I I N/A I N/A PROBATE I N/A N/A N/A N/A FELONY (3) 2,237 1 7,027 1,700 4,582 142 297 6, 721 2,543 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS(4 909 4,219 2,697 1,336 590 28 4,651 477 TOTAL 120,979 I 47,228 13,051 7,984 190 19,267 2,248 608 43,348 123,973 * Includes 19 cases terminated by compulsory arbitration. MAR I COPA COUNTY 1973 - - 0 ~"-' ~/',? 0~ "-J "I ~~~ & ~t' ~ ~ "' J7:;; :,., "-J i; NATURE OF /~~ ~ /;;' I tJ, § vj g $I e~ ~;:; 12 PROCEEDING .Q, I " ":i /;i t:; tl ~ "j t;· CIVIL 12, 672 15,005 3,512 , 2,lll 103 7,657 960 295 14,638 13,039 DOMESTIC RElATIONS 4,460 10,631 7,518 1,497 5 576 696 5 10,297 4,794 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT N/A N/A N/A N/A JUVENILE I N/A 4,114 3,550 3,550 N/A ADOPTION N/A I 711 683 683 N/A MENTAL HEALTH I N/A N/A N/A N/A PROBATE I N/A N/A N/A N/A FELONY (3) J 1,735 5,336 823 3,673 111 227 4,834 2,237 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS ( I~ 732 4' 303 I I 2, 3o4 I I 686 I 1,108 28 4,126 909 TOTAL ll9 , 599 I 40,100lll,030 I 6,735 1 108116 825 1 2 875 555 38,128 20,979 NOTE: Footnotes follow Maricopa County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. N/A Data Not Available. 64 MARICOPA COUNTY 1972 NATURE OF PROCEEDING , ,.., ''--- CIVIL 11,879 15,144 3,677 1,955 112 7,249 1,030 32 14,351 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 4,401 9,815 6,995 1,3291 31 6761 152 I ~ 9,75614,460 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT N/A N/A N/A JUVENILE I N/A 3,073 2,570 2,570 ADOPTION N/A 668 626 626 ENTAL HEALTH I N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PROBATE l N/A FELONY (3) 1,210 4,308 1,005 2,499 117 162 3,78311,735 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS(4 640 3,887 2,193 456 1 , 123 23 3,795 732 19,59 TOTAL 118.130 I 36,895110,672 I 6 1 482 115 14,076 3,022 514 34,881 MARICOPA COUNTY 1965 - 1971 SUMMARY <..; NATURE OF ....., '<,' lJ PROCEEDING ~ e~~ 12 CIVIL 89,879 27,094 736 2, 13 DOMESTIC REl.A TI ONS 48,507 31,841 8' 2791 BI 3,8011 3' 3111 21 47,242 I 4,401 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT N/A N/A N/A JUVENILE N/A N/A N/A ADOPTION N/A N/A I N/A MENTAL HEALTH N/A N/A N/A PROBATE N/A N/A N/A FELONY (3) 15,282 4,398 8,390 301 1, 53 0 14,619 1 ,2 10 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS ( 41 I 12,3121 I 1,028 2,283 2,542 222 12 , 075 640 TOTAL I 1166,040 58,935 32,393 744 55,331 11,888 3,888 163,179 18,130 NOTE: Footnotes f ollow Maricopa County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. N/ A Data No t Available 65 MOHA VE COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY NATURE OF PROCEEDING CIVIL 2,4851 63811,057 17 209 319 20 2,260 DOMESTIC RElATIONS 2,613 1,886 318 1 44 319 0 2,568 9 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 1,033 918 918 JUVENILE 1,338 1,288 1,288 5 ADOPTION 357 312 312 72 MENTAL HEALTH 247 244 244 6 PROBATE 1,992 1,823 1,823 290 FELONY (3) 1,356 443 684 69 87 1,283 85 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 336 195 46 67 16 324 15 TOTAL 11, 7571 2,524 I 2,013 18 I 5,568 774 123 111,020 I 1,01 (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation µroceedings are for non-prosecution. (2) Repre sents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal support, juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate ca tegories ; represents Plea dispositions .for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories. (3) Statistics represent number of defendants. 66 MOHAVE COUNTY 1976 NATURE OF PROCEEDING l l <-. I < ' - qlJ CIVIL f 2751 288f 9zf ~5J J 20! al 2791 28 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 1361 4651 4101 661 ol 41 231 DI 503 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 112 165 166 166 JUVENILE 34 204 185 185 5 ADOPTION 70 35 33 33 7 MENTAL HEALTH 5 7 6 6 PROBATE 274 219 203 2031 29 FELO NY (3) 97 188 49 121 3 27 200 8 MISDEMEANOR / APPEALS (3 36 44 I 50 7 7 1 65 TOTAL 1,039 1,615 502 I 317 3 737 53 28 1,64011,01 MOP.A VE COUNTY 1975 ~ 0~ '--1 ~ 0/j NATURE OF ~ i:f r}' /2 PROCEEDING I~,t1 ~ ~ CIVIL I 296 98 161 6 292 275 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 120 409 339 1 481 ol ol 61 ol 39 3 I 136 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 92 143 123 123 112 JUVENILE 41 136 143 143 34 ADOPTION 61 36 27 27 70 MENTAL HEALTH 6 23 24 24 5 PROBATE 217 245 188 188 274 FELONY (3) 74 192 58 95 5 11 169 97 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 17 49 15 8 6 1 30 36 TOTAL 92 j 1,504 437 282 6 613 38 13 1,389 1 , 039 NOTE: Footnotes follow Mohave County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 67 MOHAVE COUNTY 1974 0 f.-, t' ~ ~'<} ~c':? \..'.~ NATURE OF ~ PROCEEDING Ill ~ CIVIL I 232 I 3331 109 147 1 7 4 1 269 29 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 1031 3541 3041 281 11 01 41 01 3371 12 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 104 126 138 138 9 JUVENILE 24 147 130 130 4 ADOPTION 53 43 35 35 6 MENTAL HEALTH 0 25 19 19 PROBATE 215 218 216 216 21 FELONY (3) 96 203 104 115 1 5 225 7 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 12 19 11 3 0 0 14 TOTAL 839 1,468 4131 290 2 663 9 6 1,383 92 MOHAVE COUNTY 1973 NATURE OF PROCEEDING . - Sl l l -~ r « CIVIL f 1991 209f 76 r 9J 21 or 31 1761 232 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 94 1 26 81 2281 301 01 01 11 01 2591 103 RECIPROCAL I SUPPORT 107 124 127 127 104 JUVENILE 27 158 161 161 2l1 ADOPTION 42 40 29 29 53 MENTAL HEALTH 0 22 22 22 0 PROBATE 233 216 234 234 215 FELONY (3) 86 221 88 109 8 6 211 96 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 13 26 18 6 31 o I 2 71 12 r TOTAL 801 1,284 304 230 2 688 151 7 I 1, 2461 839 NOTE: Footnotes follow 1965 - 1976 Mohave County Summary Tables. 68 MOHAVE COUNTY 1972 # NATURE OF I ~!; PROCEEDING -.Q,. CIVIL 215 861 1131 21 261 191 11 2471 19 DOMESTIC 2311 RELATIONS 88 232 1551 301 01 211 201 01 2261 9 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 99 120 112 112 10 JUVENILE 26 176 175 175 2 ADOPTION 54 34 46 46 MENTAL HEALTH I 0 16 16 16 240 201 208 PROMTE l 2081 233 FELO NY (3) 23 236 72 69 24 8 173 86 MI SDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 14 26 15 6 6 0 27 13 TOTAL I 759 1,272 241 230 2 679 69 9 1,230 801 MOHA VE COUNTY 1965 - 1971 Sill1MARY NATURE OF PROCEEDING CIVIL 1,1531 1n 1 3901 31 1591 2521 16 I 997 I 215 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 885 450 I 1161 01 191 2651 o I 850 I 88 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 355 252 252 99 JUVENILE I I 517 494 494 26 ADOPTION 169 142 142 54 MENTAL HEALTH I I 154 157 157 0 893 774 774 240 PROMTE l FELONY (3) 316 72 175 28 30 305 23 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 172 86 16 45 14 1611 14 TOTAL I I 4,614 627 664 3 2,188 590 60 4 , 132 I 759 NOTE: Footnotes follow Mohave County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 69 NAVAJO COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY (4) TER 0 ~ -S'/~3/6 -..:.s;:;-.~ NATURE OF - ~ PROCEEDING ~ CIVIL 1,943 527 711 46 233 287 56 1,860 281 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2,180 1,466 465 4 2 181 1 2,119 133 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 494 483 483 23 JUVENILE (5) ADOPTION 640 660 660 69 MENTAL HEALTH 108 108 108 0 PROBATE 1,233 1,253 1,253 173 FELONY (3) 1,910 347 1,337 5 97 1,786 123 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 379 171 115 35 45 366 20 TOTAL 8,887 1,993 1,694 50 4,191 508 199 8,635 822 (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for non-prosecution. (2) Represents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal support, juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate categories; represents Plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories. (3) Statistics represent number of defendants. (4) Statistics for 1966 reported on a summary basis only and are not included in the summary table figures. Figures as reported for 1966 are Civil: 321 filings, 312 terminations; Criminal: 114 filings, 110 terminations. (5) Juvenile statistics not readily available for purposes of this report. 70 NAVAJO COUNTY 1976 NATURE OF PROCEEDING ' 9 ' I ' ~5J 5 ( - 62 r ( CIVIL f 276 1 207 f 36 r 361 ·: 202 I 281 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 1381 2661 191 I 38 1 ol 11 41 I o I 2711 133 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I 51 831 I I I 65I I I 65 I 23 JUVENILE (5) ADOPTION I 52 1 611 I I I 441 I I 441 69 MENTAL HEALTH 0 4 4 4 0 PROBATE 144 116 87 87 173 FELONY (3) 106 358 72 251 0 18 341 123 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 12 57 I 29 14 4 2 49 I 20 TOTAL 733 1!152 221 I 194 5 528 81 28 1, 06 31 822 NAVAJO COUNTY 197 5 ~ ~ §':;j :,.,'--) '--) NATURE OF ::;' ,t-' ~ ?;' ~ 4, &P! §7:J ~ f..; 12 PROCEEDING £:i ~ ~ '")13;' CIVIL 212 245 52 23 6 28 8 181 276 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 1441 2731 180 I 54 I 11 11 43 I o I 279 I 138 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I 3I 771 I I I 75I I I 7 5 I 5 JUVENILE (5) ADOPTION 52 1 621 I I I 62 1 I I 621 52 MENTAL HEALTH 0 4 4 4 0 PROBATE 139 104 99 99 144 FELONY (3) 70 374 86 234 0 18 338 106 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEA LS (3j 13 55 22 20 9 5 56 ~ 12 TOTAL I 633 1,194 232 185 7 559 80 31 1,094 i 733 NOTE: Footnotes follow Navajo County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table . 71 NAVAJO COUNTY 1974 ,# NATURE OF I ~~ PROCEEDING ~ ( t ~~J ·~r CIVIL I 1791 21J 49 f 6J 2f 251 183 r 212 DOMESTIC REIATIONS I 1201 2451 158 I 491 ol ol 141 ol 2211 144 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I 11 67 I I I I 651 I I 65 I 3 I JUVENILE (5) AOOPTION I 311 681 I I I 471 I I 471 52 MENTAL HEALTH 0 4 4 4 0 PROBATE 119 127 107 107 139 FELO NY (3) 76 235 51 175 1 14 241 70 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 9 53 30 10 2 7 49 13 TOTAL 535 1,015 201 I 191 2 449 42 26 917 633 NAVAJO COUNTY 1973 ,# c:!,::;· 0~ '¾'"I ..., NATURE OF ~ ,§5,::; if I ~~ ~ (] I:; I:? PROCEEDING ~ ~ ~ CIVIL I 206 153 80 1 30 34 4 180 179 DOMESTIC REIATIONS I 1211 2351 153 I 601 01 ol 23 I o I 236 I 120 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I ol 481 I I I 47 I I I 47 I 1 JUVENILE (5) ADOPTION I 691 121 I I I 110 I I I 110 ft 31 MENTAL HEALTH 16 I I I I 16 I I I 16 I 0 PROBATE I 11:1 134 I I I I 131 I I I 131 I 119 FELO NY (3) I 36 I 226 I I 15 I I 166 I 11 4 I 186 I 76 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3j 7 24 11 4 3 4 22 9 TOTAL 555 908 184 166 1 504 61 I 12 928 535 NOTE : Footnotes follow Navajo County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 72 NAVAJO COUNTY 1972 NATURE OF PROCEEDING . -~ ; I £ £ -~ r CIVIL f 1851 18sf 45 f 72r J 161 241 164' 206 DOMESTIC RElATIONS I 1051 2341 161 I 461 ol ol lll o I 218 I 121 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I 51 461 I I I 511 I I 511 0 JUVENILE (5) ADOPTION 551 811 I I I 671 I I 671 69 MENTAL HEALTH 0 13 13 13 ! 0 ll6 PROBATE 156 109 149 1491 FELO NY (3) 23 130 8 102 1 6 ll7 36 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 12 21 16 2 5 3 26 7 TOTAL 541 819 2061 142 4 400 41 12 805 555 NAVAJO COU NTY 1965 - 1971 SUMMARY (4) NATURE OF PROCEEDING £ I !:,l ; ' ''< I I CIVIL f I 937f 31J ~20r 281 201 1401 28 I 9501 185 DOMESTIC RElATIONS I I 9271 6231 2181 3 I ol 491 1 I 894 ! 105 RECIPROCAL ' SUPPORT I I 17 31 I I I 180I I I 180 I 5 JUVENILE (5) ADOPTION I 2961 I I I 3301 I I 330 I 55 I MENTAL HEALTH 67 67 67 0 PROBATE 64 3 680 680 156 FELONY (3) 587 ll5 409 2 37 563 23 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3j I 169 63 65 12 24 164 I 12 TOTAL I I 3,799 937 816 31 1,751 203 90 __ J_,_ 8281 541 NOTE: Footnotes follow Navajo County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table . 73 PIMA COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY NATURE OF ti~ PROCEEDING R, CIVIL *55,113 11,095 21,397 708 8,546 8,33111,561 51,63816,313 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 36,949 19,045 6,513 28 1,494 8,696 13 35,789 2,003 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 7,022 4,461 4,4611 3,632 JUVENILE ADOPTION 5,126 5,098 5,098R 684 MENTAL HEALTH 6,335 5,546 5,54611,255 PROBATE 21,577 19,653 19,653 3,910 FELONY (3) 15,108 4,101 7,865 31612,111 14,393 900 MI SDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (4 4,505 1,496 412 2,285 168 4,361 236 TOTAL 151,735l30,140l33,507 736l53,075ll9,628l3,853 ~40 ,939 118,933 (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for non-prosecution. (2) Represents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal support, juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate categories; represents Plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories. (3) Statistics represent number of defendants . (4) Statistics represent number of defendants; also includes other criminal petitions filed for years 1971-1976 . Does not include 831 cases filed that required compulsory arbitration. 74 PIMA COUNTY 1976 - - 0 f.-, ~ ~ S'f 8$ NATURE OF ;; 4, ~ PROCEEDING I~tf! ~ CIVIL 6,548 *6,358 890 l, 9651 951 2,2311 1,2451 167 1 6,5931 6,31 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2,225 4,5891 1,6441 7411 71 3811 2,0361 2 I 4,8111 2,003 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 3,346 8881 I 6021 6021 3 '632 JUVENILE I I I I ADOPTION 652 4111 I I I 3791 I I 379 I 684, ENTAL HEALTH 1,240 84 69 69 1,255 PROBATE 13,778 1,605 1,473 1,473 3,910 FELONY (3) 731 2,248 562 1,243 36 238 2,079 900 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS ( 4 251 636 221 63 356 11 I 651 I 236 TOTAL 118,771 16 ,_8].9 2,534 3 489 102 6 441 3 673 413 J1 6,657 !18,933 >' NATURE OF PROCEE DING , I ~ I I - ,--.· I I c--., I , ~ CIVIL 5, 244 ,',6 ,229 1,016 1,675 76 1,062 995 101 4' 92516 '548 DOME STIC RELATIONS 1,870 4,679 1,758 547 5 596. 1,420 0 4,32412,225 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 2,953 I 8131 I I I 4201 I I 42013,346 JUVENILE ADOPTION 7 51 I so3' I I I 602 1 I I 602 I 652 ME NTAL HEALTH I 1 , 191 1441 95 95 1,240 PROBATE I 3,152 1,630 1,004 1,004 3,778 FELO NY (3) I 676 I 2 '06 71 I 611 I I 1,051 39 311 2,012 731 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (4 243 708 245 36 404 15 700 251 IQ.Th1 16,080 16, 773 2,774 3,078 81 4,864 2,858I 427 14,082 8,771 >' NOTE: Footnotes follow Pima County 1965 - 1976 Surmnary Table, 75 PIMA COUNTY 1974 - - !J f..., ~ ~ ~f CIVIL 3,506 6,120 1,014 1,184 58 1,107 933 86 4,382 5,24 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 1,523 4,537 2,106 518 2 240 1,324 0 4,190 1,87 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 2,650 740 437 437 2, 95 JUVENILE ADOPTION 644 5231 I I I 4161 I I 416 I 751 MENTAL HEALTH 1,117 285 211 211 1,191 PROBATE 2,872 1,579 1, 299 1,299 3,152 FELONY (3) 629 2,013 645 1,004 42 275 1,966 676 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (4 234 653 239 26 369 10 644 I 243 TOTAL 13 , 175 16,4501 3,120 I 2,5861 601 4,7401 2,6681 371 I 13,545 P.6,080 PIMA COUNTY 1973 '--1 NATURE OF PROCEEDING ~ /t::&/ ~f I§/~! I e:$/$g/ i CIVIL 3,651 4,805 844 1,430 68 1,621 801 186 4, 9 5 o I 3 , 5 06 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 1 ,625 3,793 2,360 706 1 74 753 1 3,895 1,523 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 2,376 613 339 339 2,650 JUVENILE ADOPTION 601 447 404 404 644 MENTAL HEALTH 1,119 221 223 223 1,117 PROBATE I 3,203 1,856 2, 187 2,187 2,872 FELO NY (3) 988 2,019 835 1,343 31 169 2,378 629 MIS DEMEA NOR/ APPEALS 4 329 622 243 92 I 365 I 17 I 717 ! 234 TOTAL 13 ,892 14 ,3 76 I 3,204 I 3,2141 69 I 6 ,283 I 1 ,9501 373 115,093 J3,175 NOTE: Footnotes follow Pirna County 1965 - 1976 Summar y Table. 76 PIMA COUNTY 1972 ~ NATURE OF ,@ (:;I l; '<, PROCEEDING § R £:1 ~ CIVIL 3,186 4,625 41 738 150 3,65 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 1,341 3,495 2,110 4901 31 351 5731 01 3' 2111 1, 62 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 2,035 24912,376 5901 I I I 2491 I I JUVENILE ADOPTION 58li 482 465 465 I 601 MENTAL HEALTH 1,085 299 265 265 1 , 119 PROBATE I 3,044 2,060 1,901 1,901 3,203 FELONY (3) 1 , 125 1,927 573 1,262 28 201 2,064 988 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (4 158 526 93 30 209 23 355 I 329 TOTAL 12,558 14,004 2, 904 I 3, 165 I 441 4l63~[ 1,5481 374I12,670113,892 PIMA COUNTY 1965 - 1971 sm!MARY NATURE OF PROCEEDING CIVIL 26,976 6,537 13,134 370 2,097 3,619 871 26,628 3,186 DOMESTIC RET.ATIONS 15,&56 9,067 3,511 10 170 2,590 10 15,358 1,341 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 3,378 2,414 2,41L:- 2,035 JUVENILE ADOPTION 2,760 2,832 2,832 ! 584 MENTAL HEALTH 5,302 4,683 4,683 11,085 PROBATE I I 12,847 11, 789 11 ,789 I 3,044 FELO NY (3) I I 4,334 875 1,962 140 917 3,89411,125 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS ~ 1,360 455 165 576 98 1,294 ~ 158 l TOTAL 73,313 15,604 P, 975 380 26,112 6,925 1,896 68, 892 µ2. 558 NOTE: Footnotes follow Pima County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 77 PINAL COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY VJ f., I; ~ S'f} 8~ NATURE OF --;/ ~0 R t: ?J,,§ VJ PROCEEDING ~ ') l;i I I ( CIVIL 5,8121 67 s 1 878 r 112r 2,;46r 1,4001 162 r 5,573 f 508 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 5,458 2,117 1,0871 1sl 3341 1,8651 o I 5,418 I 219 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 1,695 1,591 1,591 170 JUVENILE (4)1 928 904 904 32 202 ADOPTION I 896 813 813 MENTAL HEALTH 858 853 853 5 285 PROBATE 3,442 3,326 3,326 FELONY (3) 2,431 617 1,474 40 166 2,297 164 MISDEMEANOR/ 24 APPEALS (3 851 427 167 234 13 841 21,616 1,609 TOTAL 22,371 2,792 3,009 127 11,808 3,539 341 (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for non-prosection. (2) Represents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal support, juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate categories; represents Plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories . (3) Statistics represent number of defendants. (4) Juvenile statistics not reported separately prior to 1974. 78 PINAL COUNTY 1976 # NATURE OF I dftl PROCEEDING .Q, { t :)55r -~ r CIVIL I 4641 638r 62 f 78r 17r 1731 594 r 508 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 2541 5731 257 I ll81 4 1 191 2101 01 608 I 219 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 103 281 214 2141 170 JUVENILE 43 255 266 266 32 ADOPTION 188 70 56 56 I 202 MENTAL HEALTH 13 133 5 1411 1411 PROBATE 280 287 282 I I 282 285 FELONY (3) 91 332 62 178 I 01 19 I 259 I 164 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3] 30 120 53 40 33 0 126 24 TOTAL I 1. 466 2,689 3191 3ll 21 1,451 416 28 2,546 1,609 PINAL COUNTY 1975 TERNINATIONS -VJ :---.~ 0· '- CIVIL I 444 535 38 84 ll 233 134 15 515 464 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 2591 7101 331 1 97 I 11 401 246 1 01 715 I 254 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 134 166 197 197 103 JUVENILE 29 304 290 290 43 ADOPTION 170 95 77 77' 188 MENTAL HEALTH 13 llll 1011 1011 PROBATE I 26:1 275 I I I 264 I I 264 280 FELONY (3) I 771 3311 I 60 1 I 229 1 11 27 I 317 I 91 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3j 29 202 97 31 721 1 201 30 I TOTAL I 1 414 2 729 369 338 12 1 462 4531 43 2,677 1,466 NOTE: Footnotes follow Pinal County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 79 PINAL COUNTY 1974 Es, NATURE OF ::,1 ~~ ~ 4, PROCEEDING § JI! e~f.:, £:I OS <'V CIVIL 351 55.4 17 172 127 6 461 444 DOMESTIC REIATIONS 260 677 261 105 I 21 161 294 1 ol 618 I 259 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 99 175 140 140 134 JUVENILE 8 369 348 348 29 ADOPTION 155 71 56 56 170 MENTAL HEALTH 0 58 3 551 551 PROBATE 271 221 223 I I 223 269 FELONY (3) I 671 3lll I 50 1 I 2091 81 34 I 301 I 77 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 75 100 86 18 41 1 146 29 TOTAL 1,286 2,536 295 346 19 1,237 470 41 2,408 1. 414 PINAL COUNTY 1973 4,11 NATURE OF $! PROCE EDING I £:i I i! I ,P'4?I ff I I /4~~J?' I e/ff/lf;~ I CIVIL I 3351 4631 22 I 88 1 101 1421 1741 nl 4471 351 DOMESTIC REIATIONS 306 1 o 501 260 2201 5411 I I RECIPROCAL 84 1 95 1 01 161 SUPPORT 91 143 135 I I 1351 99 JUVENILE ( 4) ADOPTION 150 831 I I I 781 I I 781 155 MENTAL HEALTH 0 0 I 891 89 1 891 PROBATE 255 328 I I I 312 I I 312 271 FELONY (3) 37 210 47 ll3 3 17 180 I 67 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 37 96 33 8 17 0 58 75 TOTAL 1,125 1,953 106 263 10 893 5001 28 1,800 1,278 NOTE: Footnotes follow Pinal County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. BO PINAL COUNTY 1972 NATURE OF PROCEEDING £ l c:--, l ~82 r sr -~68r CIVIL f 343 1 42J 48 f 113 1 18 I 434 I 335 DOMESTIC RElATIONS 215 951 11 32 1 139 493 220 4981 226 1 I o I I RECIPROCAL SUPPORT llO 144 I I 163 I I I 163 I 91 JUVENILE (4) ADOPTION 1391 861 751 I I 7 51 150 ENTAL I I I I HEALTH I 0 62 0 62 1 621 PROBATE 294 318 357 I I 357 255 FELONY (3) I 42 151 41 1001 41 ll I 156 I 37 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 29 45 17 4 ll 5 37 37 TOTAL 1,172 1,730 274 1 235 6 961 26/ 34 1,777 1 ,125 PINAL COUNTY 1965 - 1971 SUMMARY ~ b~z~:J ! ~. ~ (:;0 VJ NATURE OF ~~ t:~ I ?J,--· ~" / vj~ M~ &~ PROCEEDING I I ~ ') !:i' F..; F..; CIVIL 3,196 471 441 52 1,376 679 103 3, 122 343 DOMESTIC RElATIONS 2,459 958 577 7 211 670 0 2,423 1 215 REC I PROCAL SUPPORT 786 742 742 I 110 JUVENILE (4) ADOPTION 4911 I I I 471 1 I I 471 I 139 MENTAL HEALTH 405 405 405 0 PROBATE 2,013 1,888 1,888 294 FELONY (3) 1,096 357 645 24 58 1,084 42 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 288 141 66 60 1 6 273 29 I TOTAL 10,734 1,429 1,516 59 5,804 1,4331 167 10,408 1,172 NOTE: Footnotes follow Pinal County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 81 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY NATURE OF PROCEEDING CIVIL 1,763 300 272 20 325 266 71 1,254 586 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 763 188 102 1 51 258 0 600 172 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 204 138 138 74 JUVENILE 7,974 7,675 7,675 334 ADOPTION 110 84 84 35 MENTA L HEALTH 87 84 84 2 PROBATE 701 401 401 439 FELONY (3) 778 31 345 154 23 553 222 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 281 49 127 56 2 234 51 TOTAL 12,661 488 454 211 9,230 734 96111,02311,915 (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for non-prosecution. (2) Represents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal s upport, juve nile, adoption, mental h ea lth and probate categories; represents Plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories. (3) Statistics represent number of defendants. 82 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 1976 NATURE OF PROCEEDING CIVIL 464 308 110 25 0 13 38 0 586 1861 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 169 107 37 16 0 3 48 0 104 172 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 52 26 4 74 JWENILE 209 872 747 74; I 334 ADOPTION I 18 22 5 SI 35 MENTAL HEALTH 34 3 35 I 2 3:1 PROBATE 377 67 I I 5 I 439 FELONY (3) 192 115 3 731 SI 41 85 I 222 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3] 01 01 71 51 411 171 71 TOTAL I 1,556 1,537 1471 4:1 al 892 91! 41 1,17811,915 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 1975 - - ~ I-, vj ~& -----cJ' (:! vj NATURE OF t: ?;- ,%> vj~ PROCEEDING Ill "'I ~ --· ~; )j ( ( -·45r CIVIL I 4261 1831 31 1 15r 7r 351 12 I 145 r 464 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 1401 1101 25 1 41 ol 61 461 ol 811 169 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 43 19 10 10 52 JWENILE 198 980 969 969 209 ADOPTION 15 10 7 7 18 MENTAL HEALTH 33 3 2 2 34 PROBATE 337 55 15 15 377 FELONY (3) 151 112 5 51 9 6 71 192 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3j 31 12 1 0 1 0 21 41 TOTAL I 1,374 1,484 56 25 7 1,105 91 18 1,30211,556 NOTE: Footnotes follow Santa Cruz County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 83 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 1974 # NATURE OF I !j PROCEEDING .Q,~ I I ~~or -~ r CIVIL I 358 1 199r 1J 60 r 2 r 32 1 131f 426 DOMESTIC 1271 26 32 1 · o I 101 I 140 RELATIONS I 1141 I 39 1 ol 41 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 33 20 20 I 43 30 1 JUVENILE I 143 1,096 1 ,041 198 1 , 04: I ADOPTION I 71 12 4 15 MENTAL HEALTH 6 I 33 23 1 161 PROBATE I 306 45 I I I 1:1 I I 14 I 337 FELONY (3) I 1641 521 I 11 I 56 1 41 41 65 I 151 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEA LS (3 36 12 9 2 6 0 17 31 TOTAL 1. 181 1,592 40 I 109 2 1, 167 74 7 1,399 1,374 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 1973 # :::! 1J' "'~ '--I NATURE OF ~ if I ~!j ~ 12 PROCEEDING .Q, ~ ff CIVIL I 21 22 0 39 30 2 114 358 DOMESTIC RET.A TI ONS 981 sol 111 31 ol 11 1 39 1 ol 64 I 114 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 28 17 15 15 30 JUVENILE 166 818 841 841 143 ADOPTION 6 7 6 6 7 MENTAL HEALTH 17 8 2 2 23 PROBATE 240 84 18 18 306 FELO NY (3) 119 122 3 65 7 2 77 164 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 26 21 8 3 0 0 11 36 TOTAL 996 1,333 32 36 0 1,000 76 4 1,148 1,181 NOTE: Footnotes follow Santa Cruz County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 84 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 1972 NATURE OF PROCEEDING l ~ I - s:i · ✓ t ( ~ CIVIL f 2391 130f 7 f 20 r ol 221 221 ~ ( nl 296 DOMESTIC REIATIONS I 711 7 91 251 41 01 31 201 o I 52 I 98 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 19 21 12 12 28 JUVENILE 236 866 936 936 166 ADOPTION 5 9 8 8 6 MENTAL HEALTH 10 9 17 PROBATE 197 66 2:1 I I 2: I 240 FELONY (3) 86 62 2 91 17 I 1 I 29 I 119 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 25 11 4 1 5 0 10 I 26 TOTAL 888 11253 32 30 0 1,016 64 3 1, 1451 996 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 1965 - 1971 SUMMARY '--1 NATURE OF ;; "I I V SJ I ~· I ~ 1~ Q / .., " / ~ '--1 PROCEEDING I I ~ if lP ~ &! ep t?# 12 CIVIL I 7671 117 I 130 1 111 1861 1091 52 605 239 DOMESTIC RElATIONS I 2601 64 I 36 1 11 24 1 731 o I 198 I 71 RECIPROCAL 19 SUPPORT 88 77 771 JUVENILE I I 3,342 3,141 3 ,141 236 ADOPTION 50 54 54 5 MENTAL HEALTH 48 37 37 10 PROBATE 384 326 326 197 FELONY (3) 315 17 91 112 6 226 86 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 208 27 114 441 2 I 181 I 25 I j 5,462 181 210 12 4,050 338 1 60 4,851 888 ~ I I 'NOTE: Footnotes follow Santa Cruz County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 85 YAVAPAI COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY NATURE OF PROCEEDING CIVIL 4,3651 1,208 754 701 1,448 586 112 4,178 DOMESTIC REIATIONS 3,6381 2,598 507 161 179 334 1 3,635 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 1,060 940 940 JUVENILE ( 4) ADOPTION 605 579 579 27 MENTAL HEALTH 361 352 352 5 PROBATE 2,848 2,518 2,518 433 FELO NY (3) 1,769 404 1,032 24 141 1,601 169 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 646 187 169 162 41 559 _8_8 TOTAL 15,2921 3,80611,852 861 7,2171 1,106 295 I 14,36211,282 (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for non-prosecution. (2) Represents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal support, juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate categories; represents Plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories. (3) Statistics represent number of defendants. (4) Not reportkd, as statistics are not readily available. 86 YAVAPAI COUNTY 1976 NATURE OF PROCEEDING l ~ I - 5:2· / l <'y / I ~ CIVIL 38 71 49J 127f 95r J 1791 531 8 I 4661 41 fI DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 28 1 5151 3691 441 11 221 581 01 4941 4 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I 651 1771 I I I 1421 I I 142 I 10 JUVENILE (4) ADOPTION I 621 361 I I I nl I I 71 MENTAL HEALTH 7 9 11 11 PROBATE 407 223 197 197 FELONY (3) 148 246 37 168 6 14 225 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3] 81 I 961 I 301 I 241 31 4 89 88 TOTAL I 1, 18s I 1,7921 496 I 2061 SI 8141 148 26 1,695 1,282 YAVAPAI COWTY 1975 ~ NATURE OF "-I -,,·N ~- ---.. ·a §1:,,.,"-J et- vj ~ O ~ § ,:J PROCEEDING Ill I ~t- 1/ ~ I ~ /Ji~a/:l I ~ "J~I , CIVIL I 4741 4321 1451 901 121 2011 561 15 I 5191 387 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 78 I 4801 350 1 721 3 1 431 621 o I 530 I 28 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I 7 s I 1371 I I I 147 I I I 147 I 65 ! I JUVENILE (4) ADOPTION I 87 1 sol I I I 751 I I 7 s I 62 MENTAL HEALTH 1 20 14 14 7 PROBATE 413 225 231 231 407 FELONY (3) 115 259 36 177 4 9 226 148 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 45 86 13 11 24 2 I 50 81 TOTAL 1,288 1,689 495 211 15 899 146 26 I 1,792 1,185 NOTE: Footnotes follow Yavapai County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 87 YAVAPAI COUNTY 1974 NATURE OF PROCEEDING ...., CIVIL 342 552 129 46 8 177 44 16 I 4201 47 DOMESTIC RElATIONS 56 457 351 I 301 01 241 301 o I 435 I 78 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 871 1401 I I I 1521 1521 75 JUVENILE (4) - - - I I ADOPTION 84 731 I I I 701 I I 10 I 87 MENTAL HEALTH 0 24 23 23 1 PROBATE 367 218 172 172 413 FELONY (3) 129 278 79 188 3 22 292 ll5 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 32 108 45 15 25 10 95 45 TOTAL 1,097 1,850 480 200 8 821 102 48 1,659 1,288 YAVAPAI COUNTY 1973 NATURE OF PROCEEDING l I ~ t. l " '"Y l < CIVIL f 32 71 35J 90 r 74 r 61 u81 401 12 I 340 I 342 DOMESTIC RElATIONS I 73 I 3311 260 I 491 21 151 21 I 1 I 348 I 56 RECIPROCAL I SUPPORT I 73 I 129 I I I I ll5l I I ll5 I 87 I JUVENILE (4) ADOPTION I 641 571 I I I 371 I I 3 7 I 84 MENTAL HEALTH 0 25 25 25 0 PROBATE 295 245 173 173 367 FELONY (3) 77 216 28 ll2 3 21 164 129 MIS DEMEA NOR/ APPEALS (3 21 61 15 8 23 4 50 I 32 TOTAL 930 1,419 350 166 8 603 87 38 1. 252 I 1. 097 NOTE: Footnotes follow Yavapai County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 88 YAVAPAI COUNTY 1972 TERMINATIONS NATURE OF PROCEEDING l ~ I Sl I. l CIVIL f 3061 32J llJ sJ 11 901 361 ~r 299r 32 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I so I 3411 2341 401 11 121 311 01 318 I 73 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 64 981 I I I 891 I I 89 I 73 JUVENILE (4) ------ ADOPTION 42 64' I I I 421 I I 42 I 64 MENTAL HEALTH 0 21 21 21 0 PROBATE 314 156 175 175 295 FELONY (3) 30 191 34 92 0 18 144 77 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 17 46 19 11 11 1 42 21 TOTAL 823 1,237 348 144 2 532 78 26 1,130 930 YAVAPAI COUNTY 1965 - 1971 "' NATURE OF :::;' ~ - ?; 4, §,i !:; PROCEEDING -C)11 ~ ">!:; CIVIL 2,216 603 398 39 357 54 2,134 306 DOMESTIC 1, s10 I so RElATIONS 1' 5141 1,0341 2721 91 631 1321 01 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 379 I I I 2951 I I 295 I 64 I JUVENILE (Lf) ADOPTION 3251 I I I 2841 I I 284' 42 ME NTAL HEALTH 262 258 258 0 PROBATE 1,781 1,570 1,570 31 FELONY (3) 579 190 295 8 57 550 30 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS 3 249 65 100 48 20 233 17 TOTAL 7,305 1,637 925 48 3,548 545 131 6,834 823 NOTE : Footnotes follow Yavapai County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 89 YUMA COUNTY 1965 - 1976 SUMMARY VJ ~ I ~ F., /jf I;:-:-. /-::i ~ \2 f:,J NATURE OF ~ PROCEEDING l;i CIVIL 6,6121 1,7241 1,304 1281 2,200 939 215 6,510 573 DOMESTIC 6,396 354 RELATIONS 6,5091 3,90611,266 81 560 653 3 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 2,112 27 1,895 1,922 326 JUVENILE (4) ADOPTION 1,194 44 1,100 1,144 155 MENTAL HEALTH 1,237 7 1,219 1,226 38 PROBATE 3,389 18 3,156 3,174 576 FELONY (3) 3,844 1,509 1 1,491 107 429 3,537 358 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 818 426 28 112 116 26 708 114 TOTAL 25,7151 5,6301 4,505 261111,7331 1,815 673 I 24,617 I 2,494 (1) Dismissals in civil and domestic relation proceedings are for non-prosecution. (2) Represents Final Order dispositions for reciprocal support, juvenile, adoption, mental health and probate categories; represents Plea dispositions for felony and misdemeanor/lower court appeal categories. (3) Statistics represent number of defendants. (4) Not reported, as statistics are not readily available. 90 YUMA COUNTY 1976 ~ NATURE OF I !$' PROCEEDING .Q.,~ ' l •~ I CIVIL I 561 I 627' 103 f 167 r 13r ~72r 1371 231 615 f 573 DOMESTIC RELATIONS I 330 I 8211 265 I 1091 11 2901 1321 o I 797 I 354 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I 319 I 2581 I I I 2511 I I 25U 326 JUVENILE (4) ADOPTION I 1451 841 I I I 741 I I 741 155 MENTAL HEALTH 24 79 65 65 38 PROBATE 452 287 163 163 576 FELONY (3) 235 596 153 257 8 55 473 358 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 91 76 I 29 13 8 3 53 114 TOTAL 2,157 2,828 3681 458 14 1,285 285 81 2,491 2,494 YUMA COUNtY 1975 ~ 1:,,,· f'-, ~ ~~ NATURE OF I !$' g (]tj PROC EEDING .Q.,~ f.:, 550 639 115 5 118 26 62 8 561 CIVIL I DOMESTIC RELATIONS 297 7931 3631 1251 ol 471 2241 1 I 760 I 330 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT I 2251 2421 I I I 1481 I I 148 I 319 JUVENILE (4) ADOPTION 146 100 1011 I I 101 I 145 MENTAL HEALTH 17 76 69 69 24 PROBATE 349 295 192 192 452 FELONY (3) 180 586 248 215 17 51 531 235 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 57 269 167 8 591 1 I 235 ! 91 I ITOTAL 1,821 3,000 501 655 5 1,006 4181 791 2,6641 2,157 NOTE : Footnotes follow Yuma County 1965 - 1976 Sununary Table. 91 YUMA COUNTY 1974 - t:itf ;:;,~ NATURE OF ...., ~ ~~\..:,,t:: ~ t: I r%- § 0' PROCEEDING Ill ~ ") ~ C CIVIL I 492 I 6081 132 I 85 r 26 r :~6 r 531 18 r 550 f 550 DOMESTIC RElATIONS I 293 I 7221 532 I 111 I 01 371 381 o I 718 I 297 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 138 1951 I I I 1081 I I 108 I 225 JUVENILE (4) ------ADOPTION 98 142' I I I 941 I I 941 146 MENTAL HEALTH 8 97 88 88 17 PROBATE I 282 271 204 204 349 FELONY (3) I 196 531 220 250 32 45 547 180 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 52 93 65 12 9 2 88 57 TOTAL 1,559 2,659 664 481 26 1,029 132 65 2,397 1,821 YUMA COUNTY , 1973 NATURE OF PROCEEDING / / ~ i. £ ...... , l ( CIVIL f 4651 568f 112 r ~OJ 451 1941 711 171 Slfl I 492 DOMESTIC 2361 6111 3691 1201 ol 331 321 o I 554 I 293 RElATIONS I RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 80 I 2111 I I 271 1261 I I 153 I 138 I JUVENILE (4) ADOPTION I 140 I nl I I 441 901 I I u4' 98 MENTAL HEALTH 16 92 7 93 100 8 PROBATE 297 297 18 294 312 282 FELONY (3) 157 439 172 1 169 13 45 400 196 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 49 87 29 28 11 81 ·8 84 52 I TOTAL 1,440 2,397 481 423 170 1,010 1241 70 2 , 278 1,559 NOTE: Footnotes follow Yuma County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table. 92 YUMA COUNTY 1972 NATURE OF PROCEEDING ~ - ,..., ..., CIVIL 499 510 119 97 2 189 122 15 544 465 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 254 492 151 341 510 236 3631 981 ol o I I RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 87 176 I I 1831 I I 183 I 80 JUVENILE (4) ------ADOPTION 151 781 I I I 891 I I 891 14 MENTAL HEALTH I 43 124 151 151 16 PROBATE 607 306 616 616 297 FELONY (3) I 152 362 160 115 18 64 357 157 MISDEMEANOR/ APPEALS (3 35 68 34 7 11 2 54 49 TOTAL 1,828 2,116 482 389 2 1,365 185 81 2,504 1,440. YUMA COUNTY 1965 - 1971 SUMMARY NATURE OF PROCEEDING ~ <'I CIVIL 3,66 1 , 120 738 37 1,183 438 116 3,632 49 DOMESTIC RELATIONS 3,070 2,014 7031 71 1381 1931 2 I 3,057 I 254 RECIPROCAL SUPPORT 1,0301 I I 11, 0791 I I 1,079 I 87 JUVENILE (4) --- ADOPTION 6981 I I I 652 I I I 652 ~ 151 MENTAL HEALTH 1,933 1,687 1,687 I 43 769 753 607 PROBATE I 7 531 FELONY (3) 1,330 556 485 19 169 1,229 152 MISDEMEANOR/ APPF.ALS (3 225 102 61 21 10 194 35 TOTAL 12, 715 3,134 2,099 44 6,038 671 I 297 12,283 1.828 NOTE : Footnotes follow Yuma County 1965 - 1976 Summary Table . 93 THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND MUNICIPAL COURTS As was true at the time of statehood in 1912, into justice precincts which may be changed as the justice of the peace courts are generally gov necessary except that the abolition of a precinct erned by statute rather than the Arizona Constitu shall not take effect until the term of office of tion. However, the "Modern Courts Amendment" the incumbent justice of the peace expires. Cur of 1960 does provide that the civil jurisdiction of rently there are 84 justices of the peace in the the justice of the peace courts cannot exceed the same number of precincts. The term of office is sum of $2,500 exclusive of interests and costs. four years and no qualifications for the office are Criminal jurisdiction is limited to misdemeanors. currently specified. The justices of the peace are In further defining that jurisdiction, the statutes elected at the general election by the electors of provide that in civil cases the justice of the peace the precinct. courts have exclusive jurisdiction in matters in volving less than $500 and concurrent jurisdiction In the event of illness, disability, disqualifica with the superior courts in matters involving be tion or suspension, the Chief Justice of the Supreme tween $500 and $1,000. There is concurrent juris Court may appoint, subject to the approval of the diction with the superior court in cases of forcible County Board of Supervisors, a justice of the peace entry and detainer provided the rental value of pro tempore. The appointment may not exceed a the property does not exceed $500 per month. six month term. A.R.S. §§ 22-121 to 22-124. In the Justices of the Peace may hear matters regarding event of a permanent vacancy, the board appoints possession but not title to real property. A.R.S. a person to finish the term of office. While no § 22-201. qualifications are specified for the regular office holders, the statutes do provide that a justice of Arizona Revised Statutes, § 22-301 implements the peace pro tempore must be of good moral the Constitution in the area of criminal jurisdic character, a qualified elector and a resident of Ari tion: zona for at least one year, but not necessarily a resident of the county or precinct in which he or The justice of the peace courts shall have juris she serves. diction of the following offenses committed with in their respective precincts in which such courts On June 19, 1976, the four Tucson justice of the are established, subject only to the right to peace precincts in Pima County were consolidated change of venue as provided by law: for administrative and clerical purposes. The con solidation was designed for efficiency and uniform 1. Petty theft. ity in the administrative aspects of the work of 2. Assault or battery not charged to have been these courts. Six months prior to the consolidation committed upon a public officer in the dis James I. Martin assumed the position of court ad charge of his duties, or to have been com ministrator for these courts and contributed much mitted with such intent as to render the of time and energy toward the consolidation effort. fense a felony. Police Courts, commonly referred to as municipal 3. Breaches of the peace, routs, affrays and com or city courts, are mandated by statute in each in mitting a wilful injury to property. corporated city and town. Presently there are 70 4. Misdemeanors and criminal offenses punish such courts staffed by 90 municipal judges. The able by a fine not exceeding three hundred actual title of the court varies according to the dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail not charter of the municipality. The selection process to exceed six months, or by both such fine of municipal judges is determined by the city or and imprisonment. A penalty assessment lev town charter. These courts have jurisdiction in mat ied pursuant to § 36-142 or 41 -1826 shal I not ters arising out of the ordinances of the city or be considered as part of the fine purposes of town and concurrent jurisdiction with the justices determining jurisdiction. of the peace over violations of state laws com 5. Felonies, but only for the purpose of com mitted within the city or town limits. The largest mencing action and conducting proceedings municipal court which is located in Phoenix, also through preliminary examinations and to hold employs a court administrator. the defendant to answer to the superior court or to discharge the defendant if it appears Virtually all traffic and low misdemeanor cases that there is not probable cause to believe are filed in the justice of the peace and municipal the defendant guilty of an offense. courts. For this reason the primary contact which most people have with the judicial system is in the The County Board of Supervisors is charged with lower courts. The administration of justice in these the power and responsibility to divide the county courts is, therefore, very important. 94 COURTS OF NON-RECORD STATISTICS Submission of state -wide statistical reports by of the Supreme Court will, however, be required the justice of the peace courts to the Supreme to submit monthly reports beginning with January, Court commenced in 1973. Although sporadic data 1978, and the work of these courts will be reflected was received prior to 1973, it is insufficient for in future annual reports prepared by the adminis reporting purposes. While a few municipal courts trative director. in Arizona have submitted statistical reports to the Supreme Court on a voluntary basis, sufficient data has not been collected or compiled on these courts For the foregoing reasons only a summary of the for inclusion in this report. In 1973, however, the justice court statistics since 1973 is reported in municipal court in Phoenix, the largest in Arizona, the following tables. These statistics are based on reported 150,526 traffic cases terminated and 18,848 reports received from these courts. Because there criminal cases terminated, totaling 169,374 cases. are 84 justice court precincts in Arizona, the statis In 1976, the Phoenix Municipal Court terminated tical information has been summarized on a county 189,963 traffic cases and 15,070 criminal cases, total basis. In addition, only the activity within each year ing 205,033 cases. The municipal courts, by order by case filings and terminations is reported. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE STATISTICS SUMMARY CIVIL CRIMINAL TRAFFIC OTHER NO. OF DEF CASES CASES CASES MISDEMEANOR CASES FOR PRELIM YEAR FILED TERMINATED FILED FILED TERMINATED HEARING 1973 24,372 18,187 126,729 17,300 131,816 12,648 1974 26,646 23,390 160,396 12,990 158,090 13,680 1975 31,080 23,364 206,166 13,164 203,002 15,176 1976 31,915 26,363 212,435 16,782 210,149 14,058 95 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE STATISTICS 197 6 --·--- CIVIL CRIMINAL TRAFFIC OTHER NO. OF DEF ·I CASES CASES CASES MISDEMEANOR CASES FOR PRELIM. COUNTY FILED TERMINATED FILED FILED TERMINATED HEARI NG MARICOPA>', 18,317 15,587 50,337 4,646 51,444 8,684 PIMA 6,567 5,043 23,603 2,176 27,162 1,766 PINAL>\- 1,926 815 24,222 2,665 23,470 398 COCHISE 1,093 1,046 21,626 654 22,089 376 YUMA'°' 660 731 15,018 1,429 15,740 702 COCONINO 608 482 37,799 1,219 24,700 538 NAVAJO>', 257 180 4,385 191 4,426 146 YAVAPAI 619 605 12, 283 469 13,245 226 APACHE>', 63 48 1,632 37 9 1,629 81 GILA>', 252 228 2,501 304 2,711 181 MOHAVE 1,041 1,017 13,757 1,847 17 ,296 388 GRAHAM''' 208 226 2,021 95 2,061 107 SANTA CRUZ 301 354 2,799 620 3,622 451 GREENLEE>', 3 1 452 88 554 1 L,_ TOTAL 31,915 26,363 212,435 16,782 210,149 14,058 * 8 Counties incomplete 1975 CIVIL CRIMINAL TRAFFIC OTHER NO. OF DEF. CASES CASES CASES MISDEMEANOR CASES FOR PRELIM. COUNTY FILED TERMINATED FILED FILED TERMINATED HEARING MARICOPA 18,440 13,598 46,573 4,522 47,621 9,877 PIMA 6,252 5,511 24,817 2,061 23,870 1, 661 PINAL"< 1 ,319 667 25,247 785 24,059 452 COCHISE 1,093 1,088 21,676 357 20,949 429 YUMA 735 640 17,364 1,172 18,372 690 COCO NINO>\- 561 446 29,004 1,029 25,340 562 NAVAJO>'< 307 250 3,506 236 3,680 132 YAVAPAI 685 574 15,341 451 14,831 279 APACHE''' 28 17 303 267 413 87 GILA 259 221 3,282 269 3,845 209 MOHAVE>\- 760 619 13,135 1 , 'i25 12,869 328 GRAHAM,\- 133 167 1,475 119 1,601 140 SANTA CRUZ 501 549 3,736 304 4,787 309 GREENLEE 7 7 707 67 765 21 TOTAL 31,080 24,364 206,166 13,164 203,002 15,176 * 6 Counties incomplete 96 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE STATISTICS 1974 CIVIL CRIMINAL TRAFFIC OTHER NO. OF DEF. CASES CASES CASES IMISDEMEANOR CASES FOR PRELIM. COUNTY FILED TERMINATED FILED FILED TERMINATED HEARING MARICOPA 15,443 13,056 37,780 4,286 39,240 8 , 484 PIMA 6,070 5,231 22,073 2,189 21,951 2,167 PINAL'°' 736 735 15,072 783 14,923 493 COCHIS Ea', 833 839 15,931 37 2 15,063 430 YUMA>', 576 576 14,565 1,064 14,462 582 COCONINO 636 596 19,395 1,364 14,958 150 NAVAJO>', 223 262 4,398 270 4,437 92 YAVAPAI 656 686 10,902 411 10,892 319 APACHE>', 38 16 363 214 387 25 GILA 0', 263 208 3,607 243 3,462 182 MOHAVE 719 676 10,773 1,427 l.1,609 · 349 GRAHAM>', 209 167 7 57 101 809 124 SANTA CRUZ 237 330 4,276 209 5,324 274 GREENLEE''' 8 12 504 57 573 9 TOTAL 26,646 23,390 160,396 12,990 158,090 13,680 ~ 8 Counties incomplete JUSTICE OF THE PEACE STATISTICS 1973 CIVIL CRIMINAL TRAFFIC OTHER NO. OF DEF. CASES CASES CASES MISDEMEANOR CASES FOR PRELIM. COUNTY FILED TERMINATED FILED FILED TERMINATED HEARING MARICOPA 13,326 10,585 29,088 5,409 33,312 6,610 PIMA 4,943 3,583 19,070 2,526 19,713 2,207 PINAL 1,370 732 13,412 1,264 13,118 565 COCHISE 956 555 12,026 465 11,428 539 YUMA* 664 531 12,350 1,354 13,106 693 COCONINO 742 198 9,321 1,724 7,354 478 NAVAJO* 291 237 4,573 281 3,936 257 YAVAPAI 616 478 7,714 599 8,031 282 APACHE'°' 37 19 2,626 625 2,929 56 GILA 0°' 369 297 4,632 805 4,840 341 MOHAVE 627 720 7,598 1,574 9,655 310 GRAHAM'°' 199 110 499 363 754 65 SANTA CRUZ 219 131 3,095 257 2,884 232 GREENLEE'°' 13 11 725 54 756 13 TOTAL 24,372 18,187 126,729 17,300 131,816 12,648 * 6 Counties incomplete 97 APPENDI CES APPENDIX I THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES Alfred Franklin February 14, 1912-November 13, 1918 Donnell L. Cunningham February 14, 1912-January 4, 1921 Henry D. Ross February 14, 1912-February 9, 1945 John Wilson Ross November 13, 1918-January 4, 1919 Albert C. Baker January 4, 1919-August 31, 1921 Archibald G. McAlister January 4, 1921-January 1, 1945 Edward J. Flanigan September 10, 1921 -January 1, 1923 Frank H. Lyman January 1, 1923-January 5, 1923 Alfred C. Lockwood January 5, 1925-January 4, 1943 Rawghlie C. Stanford January 4, 1943-January 3, 1955 Arthur T. LaPrade January 1, 1945-June 30, 1957 Joseph H. Morgan February 13, 1945-January 6, 1947 Levi S. Udall January 6, 1947-May 30, 1960 Evo DeConcini January 3, 1949-January 6, 1953 Marlin T. Phelps January 3, 1949-January 1, 1961 Dudley W. Windes January 6, 1953-January 5, 1959 Fred C. Struckmeyer Jr. January 3, 1955- J. Mercer Johnson September 16, 1957-September 8, 1960 Charles C. Bernstein January 5, 1959-January 6, 1969 Jesse A. Udall June 15, 1960-January 15, 1972 Robert 0. Lesher September 8, 1960-December 11, 1960 Renz L. Jennings December 12, 1960-August 5, 1964 Lorna E. Lockwood January 3, 1961 -September 15, 1975 Edward W. Scruggs August 5, 1964-January 4, 1965 Ernest W. McFarland January 4, 1965-January 4, 1971 Jack D. H. Hays January 6, 1969- James Duke Cameron January 4, 1971 - William A. Holohan January 17, 1972- Frank X. Gordon Jr. September 16, 1975- 98 THE CHIEF JUSTICES Franklin Fe bruary 14, 1912-November 13, 1918 Cunningham Novembe r 13, 1918-January 4, 1921 H. Ross January 4, 1921-January 1, 1923 McAlister January 1, 1923-January 3, 1927 H. Ross January 3, 1927-January 7, 1929 A. Lockwood January 7, 1929-January 5, 1931 McAlister January 5, 1931-January 2, 1933 H. Ross January 2, 1933-January 7, 1935 A. Lockwood January 7, 1935-January 4, 1937 McAlister January 4, 1937-January 2, 1939 H. Ross January 2, 1939-January 6, 1941 A. Lockwood January 6, 1941 -January 4, 1943 McAlister January 4, 1943-January 1, 1945 H. Ross January 1, 1945-February 9, 1945 Stanford February 13, 1945-January 3, 1949 LaPrade January 3, 1949-January 1, 1951 L. Udall January 1, 1951-January 6, 1953 Stanford January 6, 1953-January 4, 1954 Phelps January 4, 1954-January 3, 1955 LaPrade January 3, 1955-January 7, 1957 L. Udall January 7, 1957-January 5, 1959 Phelps January 5, 1959-January 4, 1960 Struckmeyer January 4, 1960-January 4, 1962 Bernstein January 4, 1962-January 7, 1964 J. Udall January 7, 1964-January 4, 1965 L. Lockwood January 8, 1965-January 4, 1966 Struckmeyer January 4, 1966-January 1, 1967 Bernstein January 1, 1967-January 2, 1968 McFarland January 2, 1968-January 6, 1969 J. Udall January 6, 1969-January 5, 1970 L. Lockwood January 5, 1970-January4, 1971 Struckmeyer January 4, 1971-January 1, 1972 Hays January 1, 1972-January 2, 1975 Cameron January 2, 1975- THE VICE CHIEF JUSTICES Bernstein January 5, 1961-January 4, 1962 J. Udall January 4, 1962-January 7, 1964 L. Lockwood January 7, 1964-January 8, 1965 Struckmeyer January 8, 1965-January 4, 1966 Bernstein January 4, 1966-January 1, 1967 McFarland January 1, 1967-January 2, 1968 J. Udall January 2, 1968-January 6, 1969 L. Lockwood January 6, 1969-January 5, 1970 Struckmeyer January 5, 1970-January 5, 1971 Hays January 5, 1971-January 1, 1972 J. Udall January 1, 1972-January 16, 1972 Cameron January 16, 1972-January 2, 1975 Struckmeyer January 2, 1975- 99 Franklin, Alfred Morrison, born, Kansas City, Mis Angeles and San Francisco, California; moved to souri, September 30, 1871; educated in the public Phoenix, Arizona, 1879; admitted to Arizona bar, schools of Kansas City and by tutors while the 1879; practiced, Phoenix, 1879-1893 and 1897- family lived in China, 1885-1889; came to Phoenix, 1919; member territorial council, 1881; county at 1892; admitted to Arizona bar, 1893; practiced, torney, Mari co pa, 1883-1885; city attorney; dele Phoenix; assistant U.S. attorney, 1895-1897; private gate, Democratic national convention, 1892; terri secretary to father, Governor Benjamin J. Franklin, torial chief justice, 1893-1897; delegate constitu 1896-1897; delegate to the constitutional conven tional convention of 1910; justice 1919-1921; died, tion, 1910; justice, 1912-1918; collector of internal Los Angeles, California, August 31, 1921. revenue for Arizona, 1919-1922; practiced Phoenix; later became a hermit, last contact with family was McAlister, Archibald Gilbert, born, Tatum, South in 1938, but believed to have been alive about Carolina, September 23, 1873; educated in the 1950; date and place of death unknown. public schools of Tatum, South Carolina; Licentiate of Instruction, Peabody Normal School, Nashville, Cunningham, Donnell Lafayette, born Gayles Tennessee; studied law from a correspondence ville, Alabama, April 21, 1866; educated in the pub school; law clerk in a Prescott law office; taught lic schools of Gaylesville; studied law in the office school in Georgia and Florida; moved to Arizona, of a practicing attorney, Gadsden, Alabama; ad 1898; teacher, Phoenix, Congress, Florence and mitted to Alabama bar, 1887; practiced Gadsden, Bryce; principal of a school at Solomonville; ad 1887-1893; in mining, stock and brokerage busi mitted to Arizona bar, 1902; practiced Solomon ness, Cripple Creek, Colorado, 1893-1896; moved ville; assistant county attorney, Graham, 1905- to Flagstaff, 1896; admitted to Arizona bar, 1899; 1906; county attorney, 1909-1911; superior court practiced Williams, 1899-1902 and Tombstone judge, Graham, 1912-1921; justice, 1921-1945; died 1902-1912; city attorney, Williams, 1900; county Phoenix, June 3, 1950. attorney, Cochise, 1903-1905; delegate to consti tutional convention, 1910; justice, 1912-1921; prac Flanigan, Edward Joseph (Ruane), born San Fran ticed Willcox; attorney in legal department, State cisco, California, October 19, 1874; educated in the Industrial Commission; died, Douglas, March 23, public schools of San Francisco and Oakland, Cali 1947. fornia; graduated from high school, St. Mary's Col lege, Oakland, 1890; admitted to California bar, Ross, Henry Davis, born, Berryvi Ile, Arkansas, 1898; moved to Bisbee, 1902; admitted to Arizona September 12, 1861; educated at Clark's Academy, bar, 1902; practiced, Bisbee; city attorney, 1911- Berryville; L.L.B ., University of Iowa, 1883; teacher, 1917; Republican candidate for Arizona Supreme Arkansas; moved to Flagstaff, 1886; teacher, Flag Court, 1920; justice, 1921-1923; practiced, Phoenix staff; admitted to Arizona bar, 1886; practiced Flag 1923-1932; died in auto accident near Van Horn, staff and Prescott; county attorney, Yavapai, 1889- Texas, December 13, 1932. 1891; county attorney, Coconino, 1891-1893 and 1899-1911; member of the Arizona House of Rep Lyman, Frank Hubbard, born, Greggsville, New resentatives, 1893; registrar of the United States York, September 1, 1863; student, Olivet College, land office, Prescott, 1893-1897; justice, 1912-1945; Olivet, Michigan, 1882-1886; admitted to Michigan died, Phoenix, February 9, 1945. bar, 1889; practiced Grand Rapids; moved to Phoe nix, 1895; admitted to Arizona bar, 1895; practiced Ross, Joh n Wilson, born, Berryville, Arkansas, Oc Phoenix, 1895-1912; city attorney; county attorney, tober 31, 1863; brother of Justice Henry D. Ross; Maricopa, 1912-1915; superior court judge, Mari settled in Flagstaff, 1888; taught school; studied copa, 1915-1923; justice 1923-1925; practiced law with practicing attorneys; admitted to Arizona Phoenix; candidate for Democratic nomination for bar, 1903; practiced Flagstaff, Prescott, Jerome, Wil governor, 1930; died, Phoenix, January 1, 1957. liams and Bisbee; Republican nominee for superior court judge, Cochise, 1911; member Arizona Lockwood, Alfred Collins, born, Ottawa, Illinois, House of Representatives, 1929-1931; superior July 20, 1875; educated in the public schools of court judge, Cochise, 1931-1943; defeated for re Marion, Kansas, Los Angeles, California, and grad election Democratic primary, 1942; died, Pueblo, uated from high school Collinsville, Illinois; came Colorado, June 30, 1945. to Arizona, 1890; farmer near Glendale; teacher, Cave Creek and Phoenix; self taught in the law; Baker, Albert Cornelius, born, Girard, Russell admitted to Arizona bar, 1902; practiced Nogales, County, Alabama, February 15, 1845; educated in 1902, and Douglas, 1902-1913; city attorney, Doug private schools; served in Confederate Army, Civil las, 1905-1910; superior court judge, Cochise coun War; student, Eastern Alabama Male College, Au ty, 1913-1925; justice, 1925-1943; public member burn; studied law in the office of a practicing National War Labor Board, 10th Region (mediated attorney; admitted to Alabama bar, 1868; practiced labor disputes), World War II; practiced Phoenix, Crawford, Alabama, Missouri, San Diego, Los 1944-1950; died, Phoenix, October 29, 1951. 100 -~;-:, ' Stanford, Rawghlie Clement, born Buffalo Gap, DeConcini, Evo, born Iron Mountain, Michigan, Texas, August 2, 1878; brought to Phoenix, 1881; March 25, 1901; educated in the public schools educated in the public schools of Phoenix and at of Iron Mountain and graduated from high school, tended what is now Arizona State University; served Florence, Wisconsin, 1919; moved to Tucson, 1920; in the United States Army, 1899-1901; studied law operated hotel, was in candy business, salesman in the office of practicing attorneys; admitted to and real estate broker; attended University of Ari Arizona bar, 1906; practiced in Cochise County zona part-time; L.L.B., University of Arizona, 1932; and after 1909 in Phoenix; superior court judge, admitted to Arizona bar, 1933; assistant attorney Maricopa, 1915-1923; candidate for Democratic general, 1935-1936; member of board of regents, nomination, U. S. Senator, 1920; candidate for gov 1941; superior court judge, Pima, 1941-1946; prac ernor, 1934; governor, 1937-1939; chairman, state ticed, Tucson; attorney general, 1948-1949; justice, council of civilian defense, 1941-1942; justice, 1949-1953; practiced law, Tucson; is a resident of 1943-1955; died, Phoenix, December 15, 1963. Tucson. LaPrade, Arthur Thornton, born, Winslow, Ari Phelps, Marlin Theophelus, born Dunlap, Tennes zona, March 3, 1895; educated in the public see, October 9, 1880; educated in the public schools, Winslow, and high school at the demon schools and completed the equivalent of high stration school of what is now Northern Arizona school at Emery and Henry College, 1905-1906; University, Flagstaff; A.B., University of California, L.L.B., Vanderbilt University, 1912; worked as a 1917; served in United States Army, World War I; telegrapher for railroads and Western Union be J.D., University of California, 1920; admitted to the fore, during, and after college; moved to Phoenix Arizona bar, 1920; practiced, Phoenix; assistant 1913; admitted to Arizona bar, 1913; practiced, county attorney, Maricopa, 1923-1925; county at Phoenix; superior court judge, Maricopa, 1923- torney, 1925-1927; assistant attorney general, 1929- 1949; justice, 1949-1961, died, Phoenix, February 1933; attorney general, 1933-1935; judge of the 13, 1964. superior court, Maricopa, 1939-1945; justice, 1945- 1957; died, Phoenix, June 30, 1957. Windes, Dudley Warner, born, Presott, August 24, 1888; educated in the public schools; L.L.B., Indiana University, 1914; admitted to Arizona bar, Morgan, Joseph Harney, born County Roscom 1915; practiced, Tempe; served in the United States mon, Ireland, July 23, 1884; brought to the United Army, World War I; United States vice consul, States, 1887, citizen, 1905; educated in public Madrid, Spain, 1918; judge of superior court, Mari schools and at Lincoln Academy, Lincoln, Nebraska, copa, 1923-1931, 1941-1953; assistant attorney gen 1903-1905; L.L.B., University of Nebraska, 1910; eral, 1935-1937; justice, 1953-1959; died, Mesa, admitted to Nebraska bar, 1910; moved to Pres May 19, 1972. cott, 1910; admitted to Arizona bar, 1910; prac ticed, Prescott, 1910-1945; assistant county attor ney; county attorney, Yavapai; 1912-1917; cam paign manager for Governor Osborn, 1942; chair Struckmeyer, Frederick Christian, Jr., born Phoe man, state Democratic central committee, 1943- nix, January 4, 1912; educated in the public schools, 1944; member board of regents, 1943-1945; jus Phoenix; L.L.B., University of Arizona, 1936; ad tice, 1945-1947; practiced, Prescott, 1947-1952 and mitted to Arizona bar, 1936; practiced Phoenix, afterward at Phoenix; died, Phoenix, October 30, 1936-1941, 1945-1949; assistant county attorney, 1967. Maricopa, 1938-1941; served in the United States Army, World War 11; superior court judge, Mari copa, 1950-1955; justice, 1955 to present; is a resi dent of Phoenix. Udall, Levi Stewart, born St. Johns, January 20, 1891; half brother, Justice Jesse A. Udall; educated in the public schools of St. Johns and Gila Academy (now Eastern Arizona Junior College), Thatcher; stu Johnson, J. Mercer, born Naco, October 20, 1906; dent, University of Arizona, 1912-1913; read law educated in the public schools of Douglas and in office of Judge Andrew S. Gibbons; admitted to graduated from Douglas high school, 1924; L.L.B., Arizona bar, 1922; practiced St. Johns; farmer; stake University of Arizona, 1931; admitted to Arizona president, L.D.S. Church, 1922-1945; clerk, board bar, 1931; practiced Tucson; deputy county attor of supervisors, Apache, 1915-1918; clerk, superior ney, Pima, 1935-1936; assistant attorney general, court, 1919-1922; county attorney 1923-24 and 1936-1938; county attorney, Pima, 1939-1946; su 1927-28; judge, superior court, Apache, 1931 - perior court judge, Pima, 1946-1957; justice, 1957- 1947; justice, 1947-1960; died Wickenburg, May 1960; practiced Tucson since 1960; is a resident 30, 1960. of Tucson. 101 Bernstein, Charles Coleman, born in St. Louis, in the public schools; graduated Tombstone High ) Missouri, June 2, 1904; educated in the public School, 1920; A.B., University of Arizona, 1923; \ I schools of Los Angeles, California; L.L.B., South J.D., University of Arizona, 1925; admitted to Ari western University, Los Angeles, 1929; moved to zona bar, 1925; practiced, Phoenix; member State I Phoenix, 1928; admitted to Arizona bar, 1930; prac House of Representatives, 1939-1943 and 1947- ticed Phoenix; assistant attorney general 1937-1939; 1949; assistant to Congressman John R. Murdock, delegate to Democratic national conventions, 1940, 1942-1943; attorney O.P.A., 1943-1945; assistant 1944; secretary of Democratic state central com attorney general, 1949-1950; judge of superior mittee, 1946-1948; managed political campaign of court, Maricopa County 1951-1961; justice, 1961- Governor Garvey, 1948; superior court judge, Mari 1975; practiced Phoenix; died September 23, 1977. copa, 1947-1957; justice, 1959-1969; died, Phoenix, April 29, 1976. Scruggs, Edward W., born Albuquerque, New Mexico, June 14, 1903; brought to Tucson, 1912; Udall, Jesse Addison, born Eagar, June 24, 1893; educated in the public schools of Tucson and grad half brother of Justice Levi S. Udall; educated in uated · from Tucson High School; studied law on the public schools, St. Johns and attended Gila own and with Judges William H. Sawtell and Albert Academy, (now Eastern Arizona Junior College), M. Sames; deputy clerk, United States District Thatcher; served in the United States Army, World Court, 1927-1936; chief clerk, 1936-1947; admitted War I; L.L.B., University of Arizona, 1924; admitted to Arizona bar, 1934; practiced Tucson, 1947-1953; to Arizona bar, 1924; practiced Safford; served in Republican nominee for justice of the Supreme Arizona National Guard, 1927-1942; county attor Court, 1952; United States Attorney for Arizona, ney, Graham, 1925-1927; member State House of March-July, 1953; practiced Tucson; justice, 1964- Representatives, 1931 -1935; superior court judge, 1965; practiced Tucson; died, Tucson, April 17, Graham, 1939-1942, 1953-1958; served in the 1974. United States Army, World War 11; practiced Saf ford; active in the L.D.S. Church and president Cali McFarland, Ernest William, born near Earlsboro, fornia Mission, 1958-1960; justice, 1960-1972; is a Oklahoma, October 9, 1894; educated in the public resident of Tempe. schools; attended East Central State Teachers Col lege, Ada, Oklahoma; taught school, Seminole Lesher Robert Overton, born Phoenix, April 6, County, Oklahoma, 1916-17; B.A. University of 1921; educated in public schools of Tucson; B.A., Oklahoma, 1917; served in the United States Navy, University of Arizona, 1942; served in the United World War I; moved to Arizona 1919; J.D., Stan States Army, World War 11; L.L.B., University of ford University, 1921; M.A. Stanford, 1922; admit Arizona, 1949; admitted to Arizona bar, 1949; ad ted to Arizona bar, 1920 and practiced at Casa mitted to Illinois bar, 1950; served in the United Grande; assistant attorney general, 1923-1924; States Army, Korean War; practiced Tucson, 1954- moved to Florence, 1925; county attorney, Pinal, 1960, and since 1960; justice, 1960; is a resident 1925-1931; superior court judge, Pinal, 1935-1941; of Tucson. United States Senator, 1941-1953, (Senate majority leader, 1951-1953); Democratic nominee for Sen Jennings, Renz L, born Taylor, August 5, 1899; ator, 1952, 1958; governor, 1955-1959; practiced educated in the public schools of Taylor and grad law, Phoenix, and managed various business inter uated Snowflake Academy, 1918; served in the ests; justice, 1965-1971; member National Com United States Army, World War I; student, Brigham mission on Causes and Prevention of Violence, Young University; B.A., University of Arizona, 1923; 1968; is a resident of Phoenix. mostly self taught in the law although worked for a time in a law office in Los Angeles; employed by Hays, Jack D. H., born Lund, Nevada, February Arizona Highway Department; admitted to Ari 17, 1917; graduated high school, Chicago, Illinois; zona bar, 1926; practiced Phoenix; member of the B.S., Southern Methodist University, 1939; L.L.B., State House of Representatives, 1931 -1933; assistant Southern Methodist University, 1941; served in the attorney general, 1931 -1932; county attorney, Mari United States Army, World War II; admitted to Ari copa, 1933-1935; candidate for the Democratic zona bar, 1946; practiced Phoenix, 1946-1949; nomination for United States Senator; 1934, 1968; member Republican state central committee, 1948- practiced Phoenix; judge, superior court, Maricopa, 1953; state chairman, Eisenhower for President, 1949-1960; justice, 1960-1964; sought Democratic 1952; assistant city attorney, 1949-52; member nomination for U.S. House of Represetatives, 1964, State House of Representatives, 1953; United States but withdrew before primary; practiced Phoenix; attorney for Arizona, 1953-1960; judge superior is a resident of Phoenix. court, Marico'pa, 1960-1969; justice, 1969 to pres ent; recipient of Herbert Lincoln Harley Award Lockwood, Lorna Elizabeth, born March 24, 1903; from American Judicature Society, 1974; is a resi daughter of Justice Alfred C. Lockwood; educated dent of Phoenix. 102 Cameron, James Duke, born, Richmond, Califor Holohan, William Andrew, born Tucson, June 1, nia, March 25, 1925; brought to Arizona, 1925; 1928; L.L.B., University of Arizona, 1950, admitted graduated Tucson High School; served in the United to the Arizona bar, 1950; served in the United States Army, World War 11; A.B., University of Cali States Army, Korean War; assistant United States fornia, Berkeley, 1950; J.D., University of Arizona, attorney, 1953-1960; practiced Phoenix; superior 1954; admitted to Arizona bar, 1954; practiced court judge, Maricopa, 1963-1972; justice, 1972 to Yuma, 1954-1960 and 1961-1965; member of the present; is a resident of Phoenix. Arizona Board of Public Welfare, 1961-1964, Chair Gordon, Frank X. Jr., born Chicago, Illinois, Janu man, 1963-1964; superior court judge, Yuma, 1960- ary 9, 1929; brought to Kingman, 1929; educated 1961; judge, court of appeals, division one, 1965- in the public schools of Kingman; graduated King 1971; justice, 1971 to present; Chairman, Appellate man High School, 1947; B.A., Stanford University, Judges' Conference, Judicial Administration Divi 1951; L.L.B., University of Arizona, 1954; admitted sion, American Bar Association, 1977-1978; Vice to the Arizona bar, 1954; practiced Kingman, 1954- Chairman, Conference of Chief Justices of the 1962; city attorney, Kingman, 1955-1956; judge, United States, 1977-1978; is a legal resident of superior court, Mohave, 1962-1975; justice, 1975 Yuma. to present; is a resident of Phoenix. APPENDIX II COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES DIVISION ONE: Henry S. Stevens January 4, 1965-October 3, 1975 Francis J. Donofrio January 4, 1965- James Duke Cameron January 4, 1965-January 4, 1971 William E. Eubank July 11, 1969- Levi Ray Haire July 11, 1969- Eino M. Jacobson July 11, 1969- Williby E. Case, Jr. January 4, 1971-January 2, 1973 Jack L. Ogg January 3, 1973- Laurance T. Wren July 1, 1974- Donald F. Froeb July 1, 1974- Gary K. Nelson July 1, 1974- Mary M. Schroeder October 4, 1975- DIVISION TWO: John F. Molloy January 4, 1965-September 8, 1969 Herbert F. Krucker January 4, 1965-December 1, 1976 James D. Hathaway January 4, 1965- Lawrence Howard September B, 1969- James L. Richmond Decem ber 12, 1976- Stevens, Henry Sabin, born Madison, Wisconsin, 1937-1942; deputy county attorney, 1942-1947; February 25, 1907; B.A., University of Wisconsin, county attorney, 1947-1949; superior court judge, 1928; J.D., University of Arizona, 1931; moved to Maricopa, 1949-1965; judge, court of appeals, divi Arizona, 1928; admitted to Arizona bar, 1931; sion one, 1965 to present; is a resident of Phoenix. practiced Phoenix; assistant city attorney, Phoenix, Cameron, James Duke, born Richmond, Califor 1939-1942; superior court judge, Maricopa, 1953- nia, March 25, 1925; brought to Arizona 1925; 1965; judge, court of appeals, division one, 1965- served in the United States Army, World War II; 1975; is a resident of Phoenix. A.B., University of California, Berkeley, 1950; J.D., University of Arizona, 1954; admitted to Arizona Donofrio, Francis Joseph, born Phoenix, August bar, 1954; practiced Yuma; superior court judge, 8, 1913; student Phoenix College, 1931-1933; J.D., Yuma, 1960-1961; judge, court of appeals, division University of Arizona, 1936; admitted to Arizona one, 1965-1971; justice, supreme court, 1971 to bar, 1936; deputy clerk, superior court, Maricopa, present; is a legal resident of Yuma. 103 Eubank, William Erskine, born Phoenix, March 9, Nelson, Gary Kent, born Lacrosse, Wisconsin, 1925; served in the United States Army, 1943-1946; July 12, 1935; moved to Arizona, 1952; B.S., Ari J.D., University of Arizona, 1951; admitted to Ari zona State University, 1957; served in the United zona bar, 1951; admitted to Washington bar, 1951; States Army, 1957-1959; L.L.B., University of Ari practiced Pasco, Washington, 1952-1954 and Spo zona, 1962; admitted to Arizona bar, 1962; law kane, Washington, 1954-1955; assistant trust officer, clerk to Justice Struckmeyer, 1962-1963; practiced Phoenix, 1955-1956; assistant United States attor Phoenix; assistant attorney general, 1964-1968; at ney, 1956-1961; assistant attorney general, 1961- torney genera!, 1968-1974; judge, court of appeals, 1969; judge, court of appeals, division one, 1969 division one, 1974 to present; is a resident of Phoe to present; is a resident of Phoenix. nix. Haire, Levi Ray, born Chandler, June 10, 1926; Schroeder, Mary Murphy, born Boulder, Color B.A., Arizona State University, 1949; L.L.B., Uni ado, December 4, 1940; B.A., Swarthmore, 1962; versity of Arizona, 1957; admitted to Arizona bar, J.D., University of Chicago, 1965; admitted to Illi 1957; practiced Phoenix; judge, court of appeals, nois bar, 1966; admitted to District of Columbia division one, 1969 to present; is a resident of Phoe bar, 1966; admitted to Arizona bar, 1970; prac nix. ticed Washington, D.C., 1966-1970; moved to Phoe nix, 1970; practiced Phoenix; member state Demo cratic committee; judge, court of appeals, division Jacobson, Eino Matti, born Globe, January 18, one, 1975 to present; is a resident of Scottsdale. 1933; L.L.B., University of Arizona, 1957; admitted to Arizona bar, 1957; practiced Prescott; county Molloy, John Fitzgerald, born Los Angeles, Cali attorney, Yavapai, 1965-1969; judge, court of ap fornia, August 18, 1917; B.A., University of Arizona, peals, division one, 1969 to present; is a resident of 1939; served in the United States Navy, World War Prescott. 11; L.L.B., University of Kansas City, 1944; J.D., University of Arizona, 1946; admitted to Arizona Case, Williby E., Jr., born Kansas City, Missouri, bar, 1946; practiced Tucson; Democratic party coun December 21, 1928; brought to Phoenix 1933; at ty chairman, 1952; superior court judge, Pima, 1957- tended Stanford University; L.L.B., University of Ari 1965; judge, court of appeals, division two, 1965- zona, 1952; admitted to Arizona bar, 1952; prac 1969; practiced Tucson; is a resident of Tucson. ticed Phoenix and Yuma; member Yuma County Republican Committee, 1964; president, Arizona Krucker, Herbert F., born Cincinnati, Ohio, April Bar Association, 1966-1967; judge, court of appeals, 28, 1906; brought to Arizona, 1917; J.D., University division one, 1971-1973; superior court judge, Mari of Arizona, 1930; admitted to Arizona bar, 1930; copa, 1973-1977; is a resident of Phoenix. practiced Tucson; served in the United States Army, World War II; superior court judge, Pima, 1954- 1965; judge, court of appeals, division two, 1965- Ogg, Jack Leroy, born Tonkawa, Oklahoma, Sep is a resident of Tucson. tember 27, 1920; B.A., University of Arizona, 1943; 1976; served in the United States Army, 1943-1946; J.D., Hathaway, James David, born Nogales, February University of Arizona, 1948; admitted to Arizona 17, 1927; J.D., University of Arizona, 1954; admit bar, 1948; practiced Prescott; county attorney, ted to Arizona bar, 1954; practiced Nogales; assis Yavapai, 1954-1959; superior court judge, Yavapai, tant attorney general, 1954; county attorney, Santa 1959-1973; judge, court of appeals, division one, Cruz, 1956-1965; judge, court of appeals, division 1973 to present; is a resident of Prescott. two, 1965 to present; is a resident of Nogales. Howard, Lawrence, born Sioux City, Iowa, April Wren, Laurance Thomas, born Chino Valley, 11, 1931; brought to Arizona, 1942; served in the January 3, 1926; A.B., Northern Arizona University, United States Army, Korean War; L.L.B., University 1951; L.L.B., University of California, Los Angeles, of Arizona, 1957; admitted to Arizona Bar, 1957; 1955; admitted to Arizona bar, 1955; deputy county practiced Tucson; city magistrate, Tucson, 1964; attorney, Coconino, 1955-1957; county attorney, superior court judge, Pima, 1967-1969; judge, court 1957-1961; superior court judge, Coconino, 1961 - of appeals, division two, 1969 to present; is a resi 1974; judge, court of appeals, division one, 1974 dent of Tucson. to present; is a resident of Flagstaff. Richmond, James Leigh, born New York, New Froeb, Donald Forrest, born New York, New York, September 13, 1923; student, University of York, September 21, 1930; B.A., Williams College, Arizona, 1940-1942; served in the United States 1952; served in the United States Air Force, 1954- Army Air Corps, World War II; B.A., Pomona Col 1957; J.D., Cornell University, 1959; moved to lege, 1947; moved to Tucson, 1955; L.L.B., Univer Phoenix, 1958; admitted to Arizona bar, 1959; prac sity of Arizona, 1958; admitted to Arizona bar, ticed Phoenix; superior court judge, Maricopa, 1958; practiced Tucson; judge, court of appeals, 1968-1974; judge court of appeals, division one, division two, 1976 to present; is a resident of 1974 to present; is a resident of Phoenix. Tucson. 104 APPENDIX Ill ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTORS COURT OF APPEALS CLERKS Allen L. Feinstein 1961-1964 Marvin Linner 1964-1976 Division One Noel K. Dessaint 1977- Classie Gantt 1965-1977 SUPREME COURT CLERKS Glen D. Clark 1977- J. P. Dillon 1912-1914 C. F. Leonard 1914-1921 Eugenia Davis 1921-1959 Division Two Sylvia Hawkinson 1959-1970 Clifford H. Ward 1970- Elizabeth Urwin Fritz 1965- APPENDIX IV SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES Apache County William J. Meyers 1972-1974 Joyce Mangum 1974-1976 Reamer Ling 1912-1915 Richard K. Mangum 1976- George E. Crosby Jr. 1915-1919 Andrew S. Gibbons 1919-1931 Levi S. Udall 1931-1947 J. Smith Gibbons 1947-1967 Gila County ~ Dick L. Greer 1967- George W. Shute 1912-1923 Clifford C. Faires 1923-1953 .. Sam Lazovich 1953-1959 Cochise County Robert E. McGhee 1959-1975 1976- Frederick A. Sutter 1912-1913 Barry DeRose 1975- Alfred C. Lockwood 1913-1925 Albert M . Sames 1921 -1931 John Wilson Ross 1931-1943 Frank E. Thomas 1943-1960 Graham County William E. Kimble 1960-1961 Archibald G. McAlister 1912-1921 Anthony T. Deddens 1961 - William R. Chambers 1921 -1927 Lloyd C. Helm 1965- E. L. Spriggs 1927-1928 Richard J. Riley 1977- Lee N. Stratton 1928-1939 Jesse A. Udall 1939-1942 1953-1958 J. Daunt Merrill 1942-1943 Coconino County Benjamin Blake 1943-1953 Frederick W. Perkins 1912-1918 Ruskin Lines 1958- J. E. Jones 1919-1929 Charles B. Wilson 1929-1929 Walter S. Norviel 1929-1930 Greenlee County George 0. Nolan 1930-1931 Frank Harrison 1931 -1939 Frank B. Laine 1912-1927 Harvey K. Mangum 1939-1944 Dave W . Ling 1927-1936 Hugh L. Russell 1944-1961 T. E. Allyn 1936-1949 Laurance T. Wren 1961 -1974 James B. Scott 1949-1951 J. Thomas Brooks 1966-1972 Porter Murry 1951 -1971 1974- Lloyd Fernandez 1971- 105 Maricopa County C. Lawrence Huerta 1967-1968 Roger G. Strand 1968- John Phillips 191 2-1915 C. Donald F. Froeb 1968-1974 Rawghlie C. Stanford Sr. 1915-1923 Paul W . LaPrade 1968- Frank H. Lyman 1915-1923 Ed W. Hughes 1968- Joseph S. Jenckes 1921-1923 Harold D. Martin 1969- 1925-1933 John E. Burke 1969-1971 Marlin T. Phelps 1923-1949 Charles N. Ronan 1969-1969 Dudley W. Windes 1923-1931 Marilyn A. Riddel 1969- 1941-1953 Warren C. Ridge 1970-1972 Fred C. Struckmeyer Sr. 1923-1925 Fred eric W . Heineman 1971- Thomas J. Prescott 1930-1931 Robert C. Broomfield 1971- J. C. Niles 1931 -1943 Philip W. Marquardt 1971- Howard C. Speakman 1931-1946 Gerald J. Strick 1971- George A. Rodgers 1933-1941 Rufus C. Coulter Jr. 1971- Edgar G. Frazier 1937-1939 Charles D. Roush 1971-1976 Arthur T. LaPrade 1939-1945 Lawrence H. Doyle Jr. 1972- Harold R. Scoville 1943-1947 C. Kimball Rose 1972- James A. Walsh 1945-1947 David M. Lurie 1972-1974 Thomas J. Croaff 1946-1950 Williby E. Case 1973-1977 Edwin Beauchamp 1947-1949 Myron Shapiro 1974-1974 Walter J. Thalheimer 1947-1951 Robert W. Pickrell 1974- Charles C. Bernstein 1947-1957 David J. Perry 1974- Francis J. Donofrio 1949-1965 A. Melvin McDonald Jr. 1974- Renz L. Jennings 1949-1960 Dorothy Carson 1975- Fred C. Struckmeyer Jr. 1950-1955 Edwin C. Rapp 1975- John Francis Connor 1950-1951 Sandra O'Connor 1975- Lorna E. Lockwood 1951-1961 Robert J. Corcoran 1976- Ralph Barry 1951-1955 Stanley Z. Goodfarb 1976- Nicholas Udall 1953-1957 J. Sylvan Brown 1976- Henry S. Stevens 1953-1965 James Moeller 1977- .., Robert E. Yount 1954-1955 ~ Thomas C. Kleinschmidt 1977- I Fred J. Hyder 1955- Rawgh!ie C. Stanford Jr. 1955-1967 Warren L. McCarthy 1955- Mohave County .. Yale McFate 1957- Alex B. Baker 1957-1958 Carl C. Krook 1912-1915 Elbert R. Thurman 1958-1966 John A. Ellis 1915-1918 Laurens L. Henderson 1959-1974 Paul C. Thorne 1918-1919 Ross F. Jones 1960-1971 E. Elmo Bollinger 1919-1927 Jack D. H. Hays 1960-1969 Ross Blakely 1927-1931 Robert L. Myers 1961- George M. Sterling 1961 -1967 D. A. Bridges 1931-1935 Kenneth C. Chatwin 1961 - Jesse W . Faulkner 1935-1955 William A. Holohan 1963-1972 Charles P. Elmer 1955-1962 Charles C. Stidham 1963-1966 Frank X. Gordon Jr. 1962-1975 Thomas Tang 1963-1971 Leonard C. Langford 1975- Irwin Cantor 1963- W. Clark Kennedy 1975-1977 Charles Edwin Thurston 1965-1976 Gary R. Pope 1977- Donald Daughton 1965-1967 Howard F. Thompson 1965- Navajo County Val A. Cordova 1965-1967 1976- Sidney Sapp 1912-1919 William H. Gooding 1966-1970 Jesse Crosby 1919-1931 William E. Patterson 1966-1967 P. A. Sawyer 1931 -1935 John E. Vanlandingham 1966-1969 John P. Clark 1936-1942 Charles L. Hardy 1966- W. E. Ferguson 1942-1945 Howard V. Peterson 1967- Don T. Udall 1945-1963 Morris Rozar 1967- Melvin T. Shelley 1963- Jerry H. Glenn 1967- John F. Taylor 1975- 106 Pima County Pinal County James E. O'Connor 1912-1915 William F. Cooper 1912-1917 Otis J. Baughn 1915-1923 Samuel L. Pattee 1917-1922 Stephen H. Abbey 1923-1924 Kirke T. Moore 1922-1923 E. L. Green 1924-1935 George R. Darnell 1923-1924 Ernest W. McFarland 1935-1941 Gerald Jones 1924-1928 H. G. Richardson 1941-1943 Louis R. Kempf 1928-1929 William C. Truman 1943-1965 Fred W. Fickett 1929-1935 Timothy J. Mahoney 1961- William G. Hall 1935-1944 Estes D. McBryde 1966- Eva DeConcini 1941-1946 Robert R. Bean 1976- John D. Lyons Jr. 1944-1947 J. Mercer Johnson 1946-1957 Santa Cruz County lee Garrett 1947-1976 Frank J. Duffy 1912-1913 Robert S. Tullar 1951-1959 W . A. O'Connor 1913-1923 Herbert F. Krucker 1954-1965 1927-1933 John F. Molloy 1957-1965 M. A. Marsteller 1923-1927 Raul H. Castro 1959-1964 Charles L. Hardy 1933-1935 Donald Daughton 1965-1977 Elbert R. Thurman 1935-1939 Robert 0. Roylston 1959- Gordon Farley 1939- Alice Truman 1963- Yavapai County Richard N. Roylston 1963- Frank 0. Smith 1912-1919 Mary Anne Richey 1964-1976 John J. Sweeney 1919-1926 William C. Frey 1964-1970 Richard Lamson 1926-1945 Jack G. Marks 1965- William E. Patterson 1945-1959 John P. Collins 1965- Jack L. Ogg 1959-1973 Lawrence Howard 1967-1969 Paul G. Rosenblatt 1973- Norman S. Fenton 1967- James Hancock 1973- Ben C. Birdsall 1969- ,., Lawrence W. Galligan 1970-1975 Yuma County Joe Jacobson 1971-1974 Frank Baxter 1912-1919 I J. Richard Hannah 1971- Fred L. Ingraham 1919-1931 Robert B. Buchanan 1973- Henry C. Kelly 1931-1959 William E. Druke 1974- William W. Nabours 1955-1955 Harry Gin 1975- 1959- Lillian S. Fisher 1975- James Duke Cameron 1960-1961 Jack T. Arnold 1975- John A. McGuire 1961-1977 Gilbert Veliz Jr. 1976- Douglas W. Keddie 1976- James C. Carruth 1976- B. L. Helm 1977- 107 APPENDIX V MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS John Claborne Tucson 1971-1975 Al J. Flood Phoenix 1971-1973 Frank X. Gordon Jr. Kingman 1971-1975 James D. Hathaway Nogales 1971- Heinz R. Hink Scottsdale 1971-1975 Herbert Mallamo Phoenix 1971-1975 George E. Richardson Phoenix 1971-1975 Mary Anne Richey Tucson 1971-1976 Henry S. Stevens Phoenix 1971-1975 Lee H. Waggoner Prescott 1973-1977 Clarence J. Duncan Phoenix 1975- Robert 0. Lesher Tucson 1975- Arthur Doan Nogales 1975- Martha Elias Tucson 1975- J. Thomas Brooks Flagstaff 1975- Levi Ray Haire Phoenix 1976- Alice Truman Tucson 1976- Clyde A. McCune Kingman 1977- APPENDIX VI MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON APPELLATE COURT APPOINTMENTS Elizabeth I. Jones' Tucson 1975-1976 Jean Matthews' Phoenix 1975- Thomas C. Morse' Flagstaff 1975- Robert A. Pancrazi' Yuma 1975- Ernest C. Scott Jr.' Kingman 1975- James Boyle2 Prescott 1975- William D. Browning2 Tucson 1975- I" John P. Frank• Phoenix 1975- Billie Marshall' Tucson 1976- MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON TRIAL COU1T APPOINTMENTS MARICOPA COUNTY Jean Hunnicutt' Tempe 1975- Dwight Patterson' Mesa 1975-1975 Robert C. Shapiro' Phoenix 1975- Augustus H. Shaw Jr.' Phoenix 1975-1976 Mary Beth Tompane' Phoenix 1975-1976 Nicholas Udall2 Phoenix 1975- Lawrence Fleming• Phoenix 1975- David Tierney9 Phoenix 1975- Russell DeMont1 Litchfield Park 1975- John J. Kelley' Phoenix 1976- Geraldine Emmett' Phoenix 1976- MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON TRIAL COURT APPOINTMENTS PIMA COUNTY Duane B. Anderson' Tucson 1975- Reginald Morrison' Tucson 1975- Joseph Cesare' Tucson 1975- Richard C. Flores' Tucson 1975- Dorothy S. Fannin' Tucson 1975- Jack Ettinger• Tucson 1975- Gilbert Gonzales• Tucson 1975- D. Burr Udall2 Tucson 1975- 'non-attorney member; •attorney member 108 ' ' )