Cited by

Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶¶ 9-10 (2006).

A motion requesting a new hearing is a “substantive matter[] requiring the discretion of the decision-maker.” Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 38 (2006).

¶6 A party requesting an injunction must demonstrate four criteria: (1) “a strong likelihood of success on the merits,” (2) “irreparable harm if the stay is not granted,” (3) “the harm to the requesting party outweighs the harm to the [opposing party],” and (4) “public policy favors [] granting the stay.” Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 10 (2006).

is ‘ineffective’ and a nullity” (quoting Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, )).

DISCUSSION ¶11 “Determining the procedure for review of administrative decisions involves the interpretation of rules and statutes, which [this Court] review[s] de novo.” Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 18 (2006); see Bolser Enters., ¶ 12 (App. 2006) (applying de novo review in 4 SHEA ET AL. V. MARICOPA COUNTY ET AL. Opinion of the Court deciding whether the superior co

Fann, 251 Ariz. at 432, ¶ 16 ( ¶ 10 (2006)).

After a final judgment, a court may consider appeals mistakenly filed prematurely if no appellee is prejudiced and “if no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial.” Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 37 (2006)

Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 10 (2006).

¶ 13 (2011) (stating a premature notice of appeal does not need to be dismissed “if no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial” (quoting Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 37 (2006)).

DISCUSSION ¶6 Ordinarily “[w]e review an order granting a motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion,” ¶ 11 (2006), but “[d]etermining the procedure for review of administrative decisions involves the interpretation of rules and statutes, which we review de novo.” Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 18 (2006).

Cf. Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 6 (2006) (“We construe constitutional provisions in light of the purpose of the enactment and the evil sought to be remedied.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 25, (citation omitted).

Cf. Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 10 (2006).

¶¶ 12-13, (quoting Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 37, ); ¶ 13, (“[O]utside the slim exception announced in Barassi, premature notices of appeal are ineffective because they disrupt the court process and prevent two courts from assuming jurisdiction and acting at the

¶8 –13, ¶¶ 22–30 (2006), in which the Arizona Supreme Court held that § 16-957(B) applies to both an initial order assessing civil penalties and to a subsequent final administrative decision confirming the penalty after review by an ALJ.

¶ 13 (2011) (quoting Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 39 (2006)).

If a notice of appeal is premature, this court lacks jurisdiction to determine the appeal unless the prematurity of the notice of appeal is overcome by the narrow “Barassi exception” or by recent amendments to the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”)—specifically ARCAP 9(b)(2)(B), effective 2014, or ARCAP 9(c), effective 2015.1 See Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 37, ARCAP 9(b)(2)(B) was the relevant rule in 2014 when this case was before the family court.

A limited exception to the final judgment rule exists for premature appeals filed “after the trial court has made its final decision, but before it has entered a formal judgment” only if “no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial.” Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 37 (2006) ().

See Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 39

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 , (holding contract action claim for damages sub

See Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶43 , ( ¶8 , ).

That exception applies only if the notice of appeal is “filed after the trial court has made its final decision, but before it has entered a formal judgment, if no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial.” Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n

¶ 7 At Tri-City’s urging, the superior court then evaluated the stay request under the criteria applied by Arizona courts in deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction which, ¶ 9 , our supreme *320 court held should also be applied to stay requests “in the appellate context.” Under Smith , a court must assess the appealing party’s likelihood of success on the merits, weigh the competing harm to the parties if the stay is granted, and consider whether publi

See Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶¶ 37-40 , (“limited” Barassi exception applies when “no decision of the court could change and the only remaining task is merely ministerial”); -07, ¶¶ 8-9, 13 , -26 (2011).