![]() ![]() Because the claimant in this case failed to amend or refile, we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of his claims arising from the second set of acts. We hold that in such a situation, because the original claim does not describe the second set of alleged acts, it does not comply with the statute, and the claimant must amend his notice or file a new notice in order to preserve claims based on the second set of acts. ![]() ¶ 1 In this opinion we address whether a timely notice of claim pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-821.01 (2003) that alleges one set of wrongs by a public entity or employee provides notice, pursuant to the statute, of subsequent related but different wrongs by the same entity or employee. Abney, Phoenix, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Arizona Trial Lawyers Association. Simon, Tempe, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant.Burch & Cracchiolo, PA, By Daryl Manhart, Brian Kaven, Jessica Conaway, Phoenix, Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees.Law Offices of Charles M. S1535 in his official capacity with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Defendants/Appellees.Ĭantor & Simon, PLLC, By AaronD. Arpaio, individually and officially as Sheriff of Maricopa County Deputy D. COUNTY OF MARICOPA, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona Joseph M. ![]() Patrick Theodore HAAB, a single man, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |