Cited by

Newspapers, 101 Ariz. at 260; see also Stummer, 219 Ariz. at 144 ¶ 25 (imposing a similar requirement for content-based time, place, and manner laws); (“When proof of a negative assertion lies peculiarly within the knowledge of the adverse party, the burden of coming forward with evidence shifts to that party” (quoting in part Sw.

(“[T]he party asserting financial hardship has the burden of coming forward with prima facie evidence of financial hardship.”).

because she does not have the financial ability to pay it.

Because counsel’s unsworn assertions are not “evidence,” (citations omitted), the arguments by Allen’s counsel during the summary judgment proceedings are insufficient to controvert the other evidence in the record that Arojojoye was, in fact, acting as a wound care specialist when he treated Crystal.

(“Generally, the party asserting a claim for relief has the burden of proving the facts essential to [the] claim.”).

But a party opposing a fee award based on hardship “has the burden of coming forward with prima facie evidence of financial hardship by affidavit or testimony.”

(stating that court cannot properly consider “[u]nsworn and unproven assertions” in determining fee request).

DISCUSSION ¶8 We will affirm the Board’s decision unless it is “arbitrary, capricious or involved an abuse of discretion.” ().

¶10 The critical issue is whether the Board’s action was “illegal in that it was arbitrary, capricious or involved an abuse of discretion.” ().

Merit Bd., ¶ 10 (App. 2014) (concluding the ARA “is inapposite” and does not apply to cases concerning “the disciplinary decisions of a municipality and its police department”); -17, 416 n.4 (App. 1990) (concluding the ARA does not authorize an appeal from municipal personnel board decisions); (explaining a political subdivision “exists for the purpose of discharging some function of local government, that it has a prescr

The caselaw relied on by Challengers shifts the burden of coming forward with evidence, not the burden of proof, “[w]hen proof of a negative assertion lies ‘peculiarly within the knowledge of the adverse party.’” (quoting Sw.

“Generally, the party asserting a claim for relief has the burden of proving the facts essential to his claim.”

¶ 32 (App. 2012); (“[T]he party asserting financial hardship has the burden of coming forward with prima facie evidence of financial hardship.”).

(holding a claim of undue hardship was insufficient where no specific supporting facts were presented by affidavit or testimony).

To raise the issue of extreme hardship, the party asserting it must “present specific facts by affidavit or testimony.”

Following Lake Havasu City’s motion to dismiss, Welz amended his complaint to convert the matter into a special action, (“[T]he only remedy available to [the plaintiff] to challenge the propriety of the [personnel board’s] decision is by special action.”), amended his negligence claim to an intentional tort claim, and added a civil rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

Because an action under § 38-1004 provides the superior court only a limited review of a prior determination, Pima County v. Pima Cnty.

“[T]he party asserting financial hardship has the burden of coming forward with prima facie evidence of financial hardship.”

(administrative decision supported by competent evidence may not be set aside as being arbitrary and capricious).

Summary judgment is appropriate if “no genuine issues of material disputed facts remain and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”