Cited by

League of Ariz. Cities & ¶ 6 (2009).

“Our decision to accept jurisdiction of a special action is highly discretionary.” League of Ariz. Cities &

Special Action Jurisdiction ¶3 “Our decision to accept jurisdiction of a special action is highly discretionary.” League of Ariz. Cities & see also Ariz. R. P. Spec.

In adjudicating laches claims, courts must focus on “fundamental fairness” and “consider all factors.” League of Ariz. Cities & ¶ 13 (2009).

Jurisdiction ¶10 “Our decision to accept jurisdiction of a special action is highly discretionary.” League of Ariz. Cities & see also Ariz. R. P. Spec.

“Our decision to accept jurisdiction of a special action is highly discretionary.” League of Ariz. Cities &

“In the context of election matters, the laches doctrine seeks to prevent dilatory conduct and will bar a claim if a party’s unreasonable delay prejudices the opposing party or the administration of justice.” ¶ 10 (2006); see also League of Ariz. Cities & ¶ 6 (2009) (“Laches will generally bar a claim when the delay [in filing suit] is unreasonable and results in prejudice to the opposing party.”).

ce,” in context, necessarily entails a broader meaning than the second clause’s use of “appropriations.” An appropriation is “the setting aside from the public revenue of a certain sum of money for a specified object, in such manner that the executive officers of the government are authorized to use that money, and no more, for that object, and no other.” League of Ariz. Cities & ¶ 15 (2009) ().

See League of Ariz. Cities & ¶ 6 (2009) (“Laches will generally bar a claim when the delay [in filing suit] is unreasonable and results in prejudice to the opposing party.” ( ¶ 6 (2000))).

“Laches will generally bar a claim when the delay [in filing suit] is unreasonable and results in prejudice to the opposing party.” League of Ariz. Cities & ¶ 6 (2009) ( ¶ 6 (2000)).

See League of Ariz. Cities & ¶ 6 (2009); In re Indenture of Tr.

Laches ¶26 “When determining whether laches should preclude a claim, we consider all factors, including not only the length of the delay, but also the magnitude of the problem at issue.” League of Ariz. Cities & ¶ 13 (2009) (citation omitted).

which may be demonstrated by showing injury or a change in position as a result of the delay.” ¶ 6 (2009).

See League of Arizona Cities & ¶ 6 (2009) ("Laches will generally bar a claim when the delay [in filing suit] is unreasonable and results in prejudice to the opposing party.").2 ¶12 Finally, given the Arizona legislature's deliberate decision to treat credit card and open accounts differently for purposes of limitations, we are n

League of Ariz. Cities & ¶ 6 (2009)

Generally, laches will “bar a claim when the delay [in filing suit] is unreasonable and results in prejudice to the opposing party.” League of Ariz. Cities & ¶6 , (alteration in original) ( ¶ 6 , ).

g. The unreasonable delay “must also result in prejudice, either to the opposing party or to the administration of justice, which may be demonstrated by showing injury or a change in position as a result of the delay.” League of Ariz. Cities & (citation omitted).

g. The unreasonable delay “must also result in prejudice, either to the opposing party or to the administration of justice, which may be demonstrated by showing injury or a change in position as a result of the delay.” League of Ariz. Cities & , (citation omitted).

¶ 4, (noting that disputes impacting the state budget are appropriate for special action review); see also State Comp.

The unreasonable delay must also cause prejudice to either the opposing party or the administration of justice, “which may be demonstrated by showing injury or a change in position as a result of the delay.” League of Ariz. Cities &

“An appropriation earmarks funds from ‘the general revenue of the state’ for an identified purpose or destination.” Kotterman, 193 Ariz. at 287, ¶ 45 , 972 P.2d at 620 (citation omitted); ¶ 15 , (an appropriation is “the setting aside from the public revenue of a certain sum of money for a specified object, in such manner that the executive officers of the government are authorized to use that money, and no more, for that object, and no other.” (citation omitted)).

¶8 “Our decision to accept jurisdiction of a special action is highly discretionary.” League of Ariz. Cities & ¶ 4

¶ 6 Although McLaughlin filed this action ten months after Proposition 108 was sent to the Secretary of State, “[d]elay alone will not establish a laches defense.” League of Ariz. Cities & , 558 ¶ 6