Cited by

Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (citing Antwerp Diamond Exch.

Newspapers, Inc., –81 (1986); Peagler v. Phx.

New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342 (1974); (citing Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-80; Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342); see also Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (“The disregard must be more than ‘reckless’—conscious disregard would be a better description of the test.”).

Whether Phillip B. waived his argument in the superior court, or whether he did not, we are not persuaded it should be treated as waived on appeal because the issue has been fully developed in the opening, answering, and reply briefs, is of statewide importance, and “the public interest is better served by having the issue considered rather than deferred.” Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.

Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (citing Town of S. Tucson v. Bd.

Newspapers, Inc., (noting that “when a plaintiff is a private figure and the speech is of private concern, the states are free to retain * Justice William G. Montgomery has recused himself from this case.

Newspapers, Inc., we do not find this argument waived.

Newspapers, Inc., there are no facts at issue, Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp.

Newspapers, Inc., (citing Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485, 511 (1984)).

See Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., ("Instances in which we exercise this discretion [to hear issues not raised before an appeal] include issues .

Newspapers, Inc. , , 482, , 568 (1986) ); accord Harris v. Cochise Health Sys.

710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) ; see Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. , , 480-81, , 566-67 (1986).

common law, a defamatory publication by a private figure on matters of private concern “must be false and must bring the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or must impeach [that person]’s honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation.” Turner, 174 Ariz. at 203–04 (quoting Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., ); see also Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (“[W]hen a plaintiff is a private figure and the speech is of private concern, the states are free to retain common law princ

See Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (“ ‘[A]s a general proposition an appellate court will not consider a question not first raised’ in the trial court.”) (quoting Town of S. Tucson v. Bd.

Newspapers, Inc., Azore, ¶ 7 (App. 2014) (“[W]aiver is a procedural concept .

Newspapers, Inc., (noting that generally a party waives an issue raised in neither the court of appeals nor in petition for review filed in this Court); Ariz. R. Civ.

Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)).

Newspapers, Inc., –83, –69 (1986).

Peagler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , ¶ 36

See Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., (noting, “An individual may become a public figure if he ‘thrust[s] himself or his views into public controversy to influence others.’”) (quoting Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 135 (1979)).

2448 , 37 L.Ed.2d 522 (1973) (stating “the Seventh Amendment is one of the few remaining provisions in the Bill of Rights which has not been held to be applicable to the States”); Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , 486 n. 5, , 572 n. 5 (1986); see also Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 17.

See Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.