Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves the State pursuing three lawsuits against different defendants in Navajo County under Arizona's Consumer Fraud statutes. The disputes arose when the Attorney General executed impound orders without deputy sheriff assistance, which the defendants contested, resulting in a judge ordering the release of impounded merchandise. The State sought special action relief while the defendants filed a counterpetition for affirmative relief. The court allowed the counterpetition and the State's response, treating the counterpetition as defensive. Initially, an Assistant Attorney General obtained an ex parte order from Maricopa County to impound evidence, which was uncontested. A March 2, 1973, injunction prohibited the defendants from selling merchandise in violation of the statute. The court deemed the initial impound order moot due to the injunction. A subsequent impound order was questioned for service adequacy, but the court found service valid when delivered to responsible business personnel, not requiring direct service on the owners. The impoundment procedures were held to align with legislative intent and serve a public interest. The June 8, 1973, order was vacated, and special action relief was granted, with judges concurring in the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Authority of the Attorney General under A.R.S. 44-1524(4)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Attorney General is authorized to impound evidence to protect consumers, and such actions do not divest store owners of the title to their merchandise, which can be reclaimed after litigation.
Reasoning: The Attorney General is empowered to impound evidence under A.R.S. 44-1524(4), which protects the buying public without divesting the store owner of title to the merchandise.
Mootness of Orders following Injunctionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The original impound order was deemed moot due to the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from selling merchandise in violation of the statute.
Reasoning: The Court considers the original April 28, 1972, order moot due to the injunction.
Procedural Validity of Counterpetitionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court allowed the defendants' counterpetition filed without prior court approval, treating it as primarily defensive and permitting the State to respond.
Reasoning: The State moved to strike parts of the counterpetition but the Court allowed the State to respond, deeming the counterpetition primarily defensive.
Service of Impound Orders under Civil Rulessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that neither Civil Rule 4 nor Civil Rule 5 applies to the service of impound orders under Arizona's Consumer Fraud statutes, and that service is valid when delivered to responsible personnel at the business.
Reasoning: The court held that neither Civil Rule 4 nor 5 applied to the service of the impound order, which required service upon the defendant but was valid when served to responsible personnel at the business.