Cited by

But “the statutory language requires a claimant to describe facts ‘sufficient to permit’ the public entity to evaluate liability.” ¶ 22 (2009).

the settlement amount compels claimants to provide a “factual foundation to permit the entity to evaluate the amount claimed,” thus ensuring that “claimants will not demand unfounded amounts that constitute ‘quick unrealistic exaggerated demands.’” Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. at 296 ¶ 9 (); ¶ 23 (2009) (stating that a claimant complies with § 12-821.01(A) “by providing the factual foundation that the claimant [subjectively] regards as adequate to permit the public entity to evaluate the specific amou

ts supporting” the settlement amount compels claimants to provide a “factual foundation to permit the entity to evaluate the amount claimed,” thus ensuring that “claimants will not demand unfounded amounts that constitute ‘quick unrealistic exaggerated demands.’” Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. at 296 ¶ 9 (); ¶ 23 (2009) (stating that a claimant complies with § 12-821.01(A) “by providing the factual foundation that the claimant [subjectively] regards as adequate to permit the public entity to evaluate th

¶18 Insisting that the facts set forth in the February 2022 NOC satisfied Section 12-821.01(A)

¶17 The plaintiffs primarily argue that after our supreme court’s the sufficiency of facts in a notice of claim is viewed from the claimant’s perspective, meaning superior courts may not scrutinize the sufficiency of the factual disclosure.

NRK note that wrongful death damages are subjective.

7 JAMES, ET AL. V. CITY OF PEORIA, ¶ 9 (2009) (quoting 1984 Ariz. Sess.

To the contrary, we consistently have recognized the power of the legislature to retain or confer immunity where appropriate.”); ¶ 9 (describing Act as codification of Stone).

im is somehow deemed timely filed and delivered to an individual authorized to receive the notice, Medley’s claim fails because her notice does not provide any information to allow the State to determine “whether and how to investigate the claim, at what level of damages to attempt to resolve the claim, and how to take the claim into account in planning and budgeting activities.” -06, ¶ 17 (2009); accord Deer Valley Unified Sch.

at 525–26, ¶¶ 11–12, 15 (–106, ¶¶ 10, 17 (2009)).

¶ 11 (2009) (“When statutory language admits of only one interpretation, we go no further.”).

¶ 28 (2009) (A public entity is not required to request additional facts when a claimant’s NOC is deficient.).

“We construe statutes to give effect to an entire statutory scheme.” ¶ 10, (citation omitted).

¶ 10 , (“Our interpretation of the statute at issue ...

§ 12-821.01(A); -07, ¶ 23, -05 (2009) (holding the claimant is required to supply those facts the claimant deems adequate to permit the public entity to evaluate the claim); Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. at 296, ¶ 9, 152 P.3d at 493 (requiring that a claimant “include a particular and certain amount of money that, if ag

P.3d 757 (2001) (3-2 decision); Stone v. Ariz. Highway Comm’n, -93, -13 (1963), P.3d 499 (2009) (same); (describing Act’s history).

§ 12-821.01(A); -07, ¶ 23 , -05 (2009) (holding the claimant is required to supply only those facts the claimant deems sufficient to support the claim); Deer Valley Unified Sch.

“When statutory language admits of only one interpretation, we go no further.” ¶ 11

See Henry, 203 Ariz. at 396, ¶ 11 , 55 P.3d at 90 (defendant could cross-examine plaintiff with her complaint, previously admitted as an admission by a party-opponent, to impeach plaintiffs argument that the nonparties were only minimally negligent in a medical malpractice case); ¶ 27 , (plaintiffs notice of claim may be admissible for impeachment if plaintiff later makes inconsistent statements).