§ 7.3.6.1.2 Interpretation of Statutes. Whether procedural or substantive in nature, appellate courts often will accept jurisdiction in order to interpret statutes, thereby giving guidance to trial judges, practitioners and litigants. When the statute is procedural in nature, the court might regard it as a matter of statewide importance to give guidance as to how similar cases are to be processed. For example, in Maricopa County v. Ariz. Tax Court (Forty N. Ctr. Partners), 162 Ariz. 64, 65-66, 781 P.2d 41, 42-43 (App. 1989), the court found it important to decide the correct method of serving a notice of tax appeal taken pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-177. The court noted that the tax court’s incorrect published opinions would likely introduce error into a significant number of property tax appeals before the issue [could] be resolved on appeal.” Id. at 65-66, 781 P.2d at 65-66. In U.S. Xpress, Inc. v. Ariz. Tax Court, 179 Ariz. 363, 365, 879 P.2d 371, 374 (App. 1994), the court resolved an apparent conflict between two procedural subsections of a tax statute. The court accepted jurisdiction because the tax court’s published opinion would “misgovern tax appeals of motor carriers throughout the state,” a matter of statewide interest. Id.
Other procedural issues were considered in Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court (Pima County), 163 Ariz. 423, 424, 788 P.2d 1174, 1175 (1990) (determining propriety of class actions against public entities under “claims statute,” A.R.S. § 12-821); Samaritan Health Sys. v. Superior Court (State ex rel. Woods), 182 Ariz. 219, 895 P.2d 131 (App. 1994) (interpreting interplay between public records law, A.R.S. § 39-121, as it relates to voluntary disclosure, and grand jury secrecy statute, A.R.S. § 13-2812); LyphoMed, Inc. v. Superior Court (Carter), 172 Ariz. 423, 424-25, 837 P.2d 1158, 1159-60 (App. 1992) (interpreting relatively new statute abolishing joint and several liability and applying rules of civil procedure relating to statute); State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court (West), 173 Ariz. 385, 385-86, 843 P.2d 1277, 1277-78 (App. 1992) (holding claimant must personally verify claim in forfeiture proceeding, a purely legal question of statutory interpretation of statewide importance because of heavy volume of forfeiture cases filed in Arizona courts); Barry v. Alberty, 173 Ariz. 387, 388, 843 P.2d 1279, 1280 (App. 1992) (discussing time for bringing statutory special action to require town clerk to accept and file referendum petition under A.R.S. § 19-122(A)); S.A. v. Superior Court (Beatty), 171 Ariz. 529, 831 P.2d 1297 (App. 1992) (interpreting amendment to Arizona Constitution, Victims’ Bill of Rights); Maricopa County v. Superior Court...
