Cited by

To prevail, Danley had to prove (1) that Berkman “intentionally intrude[d], physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of [Danley] or his private affairs or concerns,” and (2) the intrusion was “highly offensive to a reasonable person.” (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (1977)).

[and] the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (1977); -80 (App. 1997) (recognizing and adopting § 652B).

“Arizona’s right to privacy was taken verbatim from the Washington constitution, and the records of the Arizona constitutional convention contain no material addressing its intent.” (considering the Arizona constitutional convention record in holding that article 2, section 8 does not restrict a private individual’s actions).

Hosp., ); (stating that a personnel manual will not turn an at-will relationship into a relationship for a definite term if the employer includes clear and conspicuous language that informs employees their positions are terminable at-will).

b-c; see also Hart v. Seven Resorts, Inc.

(reversing an award of attorneys’ fees because the trial court based its ruling on unsupported factual claims).

(publication of private facts); (intrusion upon seclusion); Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (false light).

6 ¶ 14 Abortion rights find no mention in the text of Article 2, Section 8, and “the records of the Arizona constitutional convention contain no material addressing [that section’s] intent.”

¶29 First, although the records of Arizona’s 1910 constitutional convention do not x'eflect the fi’amers’ intent in adopting the privacy provision, , it is unlikely the fi’amers intended to confer a right to enter a same-sex marriage.

6 ¶21 In Hart v. Seven Resorts, Inc., , we applied Leikvold in holding that the employer prevented the personnel manual from converting an at-will relationship into one for a definite term by including a disclaimer in “plain and common language.” The disclaiming language in Hart is very similar to that used by Wal-Mart.

Laws, ch. 140, § 1(A), (C), (E); Hart v. Seven Resorts, Inc., , 276 n. 7, , 850 n. 7 (App.1997), review dismissed, , (By enacting the EPA, the legislature “defin[ed] the public policy of this state and limit[ed] the situations in which an employee may bring a wrongful termination suit.”).