Cited by

Chartone, -66, ¶ 8, -07 (App. 2004).

See Chartone, ¶ 30, (noting, “in an action based on breach of contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of a contract, breach of the contract, and resulting damages”).

See Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 43 , (confirming constitutional provisions do not create right to jury trial but preserve jury trial right existing at common law at time of statehood); Chartone, ¶ 30 , ( , which held that parties in malpractice action have right to have every issue tried by jury that has been empaneled); see

“It is well established that, in an action based on breach of contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of a contract, breach of the contract, and resulting damages.” Chartone, 1 Although the signed judgment states that Appellants failed to respond, the court’s prior minute entry specifically states that it reviewed the motion, response, and reply.

1(a); Chartone, -66, ¶¶ 7-9 , -07 (App.2004).

5 *78 See Chartone, -66, ¶¶ 8-9 , -07 (App. 2004); Ariz. R.P.

(special-action jurisdiction appropriate to interpret and apply § 12-401); (interpretation and application of statute raises questions of law, well-suited for special-action review); ChartOne, –07 (App. 2004) (question of law particularly appropriate for special-action review; interpretation of rules question of law).

Perez v. O’Neil, see also ChartOne, ¶¶ 8, 14, -07, 1108 (App. 2004) (noting questions of law, such as interpretation 1 It filed a similar response to Potter‟s petition, but this court struck the response because the state had failed to comply with a procedural rule.

Perez v. O’Neil, , see also ChartOne, ¶¶ 8, 14 , -07, 1108 (App.2004) (noting questions of law, such as interpretation of procedural rule, particularly appropriate for de novo review by special action).

See Chartone, ¶¶ 8, 9, -07 (App. 2004).

This court may accept special action jurisdiction to determine a question of law before the case proceeds to trial in order to avoid the “unnecessary expenditure of time and money,” ¶¶ 8, 10, -07 (App. 2004), and “promote[] judicial economy and efficient use of the parties’ and the court’s resources.” Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs.

Actions, and because the petition raises a question of law that is “of statewide importance and of first impression,” ChartOne

See Chartone, ¶ 8 , Twin City Fire, 204 Ariz. at 254, ¶ 10 , 63 P.3d at 285 .

¶¶ 8, 10, (special action review appropriate when questions of law raised and when it may avoid “unnecessary expenditure of time and money”).

300 ¶ 9, see also ChartOne, , 165-66 ¶¶ 8-9, -07 (App.2004) (Questions of law are “particularly appropriate for special action review,” as are questions “of statewide importance and of first impression.” (Citations omitted.)).

See ChartOne, ¶¶ 8-9 , -07 (App.2004).

E.g., Nordstrom, 213 Ariz. at 438, ¶ 9 , 142 P.3d at 1251 ; ChartOne, ¶ 8

ChartOne, -07 (App. 2004).

See ChartOne, ¶¶ 8, 14, -08 (App. 2004) (interpretation of state constitution and civil rule of procedure is question of law appropriately reviewed by special action).

see also ChartOne, - 07 (App. 2004) (interpretation of state constitution and civil rule of procedure is question of law appropriately reviewed by special action).

See ChartOne, , (acceptance of jurisdiction influenced by parties’ characterization of issue); , (jurisdiction accepted to review denial of motion for summary judgment in part because parties agreed review was warranted).

(special action jurisdiction proper, in part, because “[t]he facts are not contested, and the legal issue can properly be decided on the present record”); ChartOne, (“[Q]uestions of law .