Cited by

1 (App. 2007) (affirming dismissal of mandamus claim seeking to require police officer to 12 BROWN, et al. v. PHOENIX Opinion of the Court enforce discretionary city ordinance “that generally prohibits solicitation on city streets” that did not involve a public nuisance claim); (reversing summary judgment for city, holding the city “was not entitled to absolute legislative or administrative immunity in this case”).

(looking to common-law immunity cases to determine scope of statutory immunity under § 12- 820.01).

(distinguishing between immune funding decisions and non-immune spending decisions).

it was error to hold that the lien was “unenforceable.” ¶9 In reviewing an order granting summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to Bank, the party against which summary judgment was granted, and determine “de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.” (App. 4 MILLER DESIGNS v. US BANK, et al. Opinion of the Court 1996) (); Ariz. R. Civ.

3 Accordingly, in Arizona, “the right to sue the [S]tate is not a statutory grant, as is the case in several other states; rather, it is a common law rule in Arizona that the government is liable for its tortious conduct and immunity is the exception.” (“The Act ‘reaffirmed the now well settled common law notion that governmental immunity is the exception and liability the rule.’”) ( n.4, n.4 (1990)).

74, 177, ¶ 9 , (decision to require teachers to be certified was entitled to absolute immunity while granting a specific certificate to a prior sex offender was not); Schabel, 186 Ariz. at 166 , 920 P.2d at 46 (decision to provide playground equipment was a policymaking decision but failing to eliminate specific safety hazard was operational); -36 , -16 (App. 1996) (city liable for negligent design and repair of roadway notwithstanding that these functions involved expenditure of resources and t

§ 12-820.02(A)(7), , (finding State not entitled to qualified immunity under § 12-820.02(A) because this statute not implicated), , (finding city not entitled to absolute immunity under § 12-820.01 because city’s non-decision did not implicate this statute), , (same).

(whether city was covered by statute granting immunity for exercise of a legislative function is a legal question).

("Where no actual decision is made, there is no governmental function or statement of public policy at issue.”).

section 12-820.01.A without considering the validity of the immunity statute); , (discussing absolute immunity under section 12-820.01.A but no discussion regarding validity of statute); Bird.

section 12-820.01.A without considering the validity of the immunity statute); , (discussing absolute immunity under section 12-820.01.A but no discussion regarding validity of statute); , (discussing absolute and qualified immunity under A.R.S.