TORRES v. JAI DINING SERVICES (PHOENIX)

No. CV-22-0142-PR.

536 P.3d 790 (2023)

Roberto TORRES, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. JAI DINING SERVICES (PHOENIX), INC., Defendant/Appellant.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Filed October 16, 2023.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David L. Abney (argued), Ahwatukee Legal Office P.C., Phoenix; Robert F. Clarke , Clarke Law Offices, Phoenix; and Matthew D. Koglmeier , Koglmeier Law Group PLC, Mesa, Attorneys for Roberto Torres, Orlenda Guillen, Hernan Gastelum Rosas, and Maria Suarez.

Eric M. Fraser (argued), Andrew G. Pappas , Osborn Maledon P.A., Phoenix; and Dominique Barrett , Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer P.A., Scottsdale, Attorneys for JAI Dining Services (Phoenix), Inc.

Daniel Rubinov , Rafat H. Abdeljaber , RAJ Law PLLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Arizona Association for Justice/Arizona Trial Lawyers Association.

Amanda Heitz , Lauren Walter , Bowman and Brooke LLP, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona Association of Defense Counsel.

Camila Alarcon , Alarcon Law & Policy, P.L.L.C., Phoenix, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association.

Peter H. Schelstraete , Schelstraete Law Office, Tempe, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Arizona Licensed Beverage Association.

Richard P. Traulsen , Begam Marks & Traulsen P.A., Phoenix, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD Arizona Chapter).

Mick Levin , Alexandra Van Duffelen , Mick Levin P.L.C., Phoenix; and Noah J. Van Amburg , Van Amburg Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Tucson, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Homicide Survivors, Inc.

Michael G. Bailey , Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Phoenix, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Arizona Chamber of Commerce.

CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL authored the Opinion of the Court, in which JUSTICES BOLICK, LOPEZ, and BEENE joined. JUSTICE BOLICK issued a concurring opinion. VICE CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER dissented.


¶1 The Arizona Constitution guarantees that "[t]he right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated." Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 6. This case requires us to consider whether that "anti-abrogation clause" extends to rights of action created after our constitution was ratified...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases