Cited by

§ 12-2101(A)(1), but not pretrial rulings such as a denial of summary judgment, Sonoran Desert Investigations, ¶ 2 (App. 2006).

“It is well settled that a denial of a motion for summary judgment is a nonappealable, interlocutory order that may be reviewed only by special action.” Sonoran Desert Investigations, ¶ 2 (App. 2006).

See Sonoran Desert Investigations, ¶ 5 (App. 2006) ("We .

“We review a denial of a motion for summary judgment for an abuse of discretion and view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Sonoran Desert Investigations, ¶ 5 (App. 2006).

“We review a denial of a motion for summary judgment for an abuse of discretion and view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Sonoran Desert Investigations, ¶ 5 (App. 2006).

See Sonoran Desert Investigations, -77, ¶¶ 1, 6 (App. 2006) (allowing wrongful death action to proceed to jury trial where plaintiff’s husband died after being physically restrained and choked on suspicion of shoplifting); Tug Valley Pharmacy, LLC v. All Plaintiffs Below In Mingo Cty., 773 S.E.2d 627, 628, 636 (W. Va.

-02, -22 (1990) (statute may not provide that “antecedent conduct” of person injured is absolute bar to recovery of damages from person otherwise liable for the injury under either statutory or common law principles); -25, -92 (1990) (same); Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc., v. Miller, P.3d 754 (App. 2006) (same).

Sonoran Desert Investigations, ¶ 5

¶15 While Glenna asserts the standard of review of the denial of a motion for summary judgment to be abuse of discretion, Sonoran Desert Investigators, 276, ¶ 5, and alternative case authority holds that same denial requires us to review the matter de novo, ¶ 6, (grant or denial of summary judgment reviewed de novo), we need not address the distinction as we find

Actions 3(c) (special action relief appropriate when 10 respondent abused discretion); Sonoran Desert Investigators, Inc. v. Miller, 213 Ariz. 274, ¶ 5, (denial of motion for summary judgment reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Sono-ran Desert Investigations, ¶ 5

SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION ¶5 “It is well settled that a denial of a motion for summary judgment is a nonappealable, interlocutory order that may be reviewed only by special action.” Sonoran Desert Investigations, see also Ariz. R. P. Spec.

7 *148 ¶ 26 Further, legislation such as the notice of claim statute is presumed constitutional, see Sonoran Desert Investigations, ¶ 5 , and we need not reach the constitutional issues if we can fairly construe and apply the statutory language to these eases.

No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 5 , (accepting jurisdiction over notice of claim dispute because the issue presented involved a matter of public importance); see also Sonoran Desert Investigations, ¶¶ 2-3

We held subsection (B) of this statute unconstitutional in Sonoran Desert Investigations

First, the issue raised by Robbins may recur in future cases, “and judicial economy, not to mention the time and expense incurred by [conducting the trial incorrectly], is best served by addressing the issue now, while it is before us.” ¶ 9 , (quoting Sonoran Desert Investigations, ¶ 3 , ).