§ 7.3.4 Determining Whether the Remedy By Appeal Is Equally Plain, Speedy and Adequate.

§ 7.3.4 Determining Whether the Remedy By Appeal Is Equally Plain, Speedy and Adequate. Special action jurisdiction may still be accepted even when the order challenged is appealable or the issue can be raised on appeal. The supreme court has made clear that courts should not permit parties to use special actions to evade the normal appellate process and jurisdiction should be declined in all but the most extraordinary cases. As the court stated in State ex rel. Neely v. Rodriguez, 165 Ariz. 74, 76, 796 P.2d 876, 878 (1990), the “strong Arizona policy against using extraordinary writs as substitutes for appeals is also reflected in the adoption of the special action rules.” Nevertheless, appellate courts will accept special action jurisdiction of such cases if the appellate court concludes that the remedy by appeal is not equally plain, speedy or adequate. See RPSA 1(a). The petitioner will want to identify some harm that cannot be avoided if the regular appellate process is permitted to take its course or establish other compelling reasons for the court to decide the otherwise appealable case, including, for example, the fact that an important legal issue is being raised that needs to be resolved quickly in order to give courts, practitioners and parties guidance in other cases. The party opposing the special action will want to argue the contrary to dissuade the appellate court from...