Pompa v. Superior Court
In Pompa v. Superior Court, 187 Ariz. 531, 931 P.2d 431 (App. 1997) the Court disagreed with 1988 Chevrolet, concluding that 13-2314(M) is unconstitutional because appellate procedural rules promulgated by the supreme court prevail over conflicting statutes.
The Court reasoned that the Arizona Constitution requires our three branches of government to remain separate and confers on the supreme court "'power to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.'" 187 Ariz. at 533, 931 P.2d at 433, quoting Ariz. Const. art. 6, 5(5).
The court explained that the substantive right to appeal is granted by the legislature while procedural rules promulgated by the supreme court govern how that right is exercised, observing that, "when a statute conflicts with a rule of procedure, the rule controls as to procedural matters." Id. at 534, 931 P.2d at 434.
The court ultimately concluded that "a n impermissible conflict exists between A.R.S. section 13-2314(M) and the judicially-made Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure," 187 Ariz. at 534, 931 P.2d at 434, specifically, Rules 8(d) and 15(b), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P.
The Court held that the failure to comply with these rules will not divest this court of jurisdiction to hear an appeal, although they do permit the imposition of sanctions for such failures, including dismissal, if appropriate. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 8(a) and 15(c).
The court held the "jurisdictional provision of section 13-2314(M) must yield to Rules 8 and 15 under article 6, section 5 of our state constitution." 187 Ariz. at 535, 931 P.2d at 435.