Cited by

See Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc., ¶ 20 (2025) (“sometimes certain antecedent facts must be considered in determining whether a duty exists”); cf. also Dobson v. State ex rel., Comm’n on App. Ct. Appointments, ¶ 7 (2013) (noting that special- action jurisdiction is not appropriate to resolve disputed facts).

Comm’n on App. Ct. Appointments, ¶ 2 (2013).

¶30 The private attorney general doctrine “is an equitable rule which permits courts in their discretion to award attorney’s fees to a party who has vindicated a right that: 1) benefits a large number of people; 2) requires private enforcement; and 3) is of societal importance.” ¶ 18 (2013).

Comm’n on Appellate Ct. Appts., ¶ 7 (2013) (“Special action jurisdiction is appropriate here because the petition presents purely legal questions of statewide importance that turn on interpreting Arizona’s Constitution.”).

Comm’n on App. Ct. Appointments, ¶ 18 (2013).

–96, ¶¶ 14–15 (2005); ¶ 9 (2013) (“Under Arizona’s Constitution, standing is not jurisdictional, but instead is a prudential doctrine .

.”); (“Under Arizona’s constitution, standing is not jurisdictional, but instead is a prudential doctrine requiring ‘a litigant seeking relief in Arizona courts [to] first establish standing to sue.’ By contrast, in federal court, standing requirements are rooted in Article III of the United States Constitution

Whether to apply the ripeness doctrine in Arizona is a matter of “prudential or judicial restraint.” City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 8 (2019) (quoting Dobson v. State ex rel., Comm’n on App. Ct. Appointments, ¶ 9 (2013)).

See Dobson v. State ex rel., Comm’n on App. Ct. Appointments, ¶ 7 (2013) (finding special action 3 For example, Petitioners request “this Court to exercise its original and special action jurisdiction and order the Secretary to permit them to gather initiative petition signatures through E-Qual.” Petitioners claim that “[t]his result is required by Article IV, principles

Comm'n on Appellate Court Appointments , , 121 ¶ 6, , 1291 (2013).

Comm'n on Appellate Court Appointments , , 124 ¶ 17, , 1294 (2013).

(The latter reflects the Court’s constitutional authority to issue extraordinary writs under article 6, section 5(1), which historically were a form of discretionary relief, , 121 ¶ 6, )

Comm’n on Appellate Court Appointments, (legislature’s amendment of the judicial nomination system violated the state constitution).

Comm’n on Appellate Court Appointments, (federal standing jurisprudence persuasive).

122 ¶ 9, (noting that Article III courts are jurisdictionally limited to “cases or controversies,” while Arizona courts are not similarly constrained).

¶ 9, (noting that Article III courts are jurisdictionally limited to “cases or controversies,” while Arizona courts are not similarly constrained).

¶ 18 Appellants request an award of attorneys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine, which is an equitable rule permitting courts to award attorneys’ fees to parties who have vindicated a right that “(1) benefits a large number of people; (2) requires private enforcement; and (3) is of societal importance.” ¶18 , *7 (2013) (quoting Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs., , ).

Comm’n on Appellate Court Appointments, ¶ 7

Comm’n on Appellate Court Appointments, ¶ 11 , (Arizona’s declaratory judgment statute, AR.S.