Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard 2009 Annual Report

Civil Division
Division Summary
• Mayer Unified School
not brought within the statute
Chief Counsel Pam Culwell
Mission:
A dynamic team of
legal professionals
representing Arizona
in many areas of
civil law with
dedication, integrity
and innovation.
The Civil Division is comprised of seven sections that focus
on specialty areas of civil law including natural resources;
tax, bankruptcy and collections; liability management;
employment; public health; public safety; transportation;
contract review; procurement; licensing and enforcement;
education, and complex case litigation.
Major Cases
ticular government programs
• Arpaio v. Maricopa County to the general fund; (2) requiring
transfer of public money
Board of Supervisors;
Arizona Association of Chiropractic,
et al. v. Brewer; counties to the state general
initially appropriated to the
Arizona Farm Bureau v. fund; and (3) requiring reductions
in agency spending.
Brewer; Arizona Property &
Casualty Insurance Guaranty
Fund, et al. v. Brewer; tions that the transfer bills
The plaintiffs sought declara-
Industrial Commission of were unconstitutional and
Arizona v. Martin, et al.; injunctions prohibiting future
AAPPD v. State; and, Zoe transfers or requiring return
M., et al. v. Blessing: We of money already transferred.
defended the constitutionality Our Office prevailed in the
of bills aimed at addressing trial court.
the State’s budget deficit by
(1) transferring existing public
money associated with par-
District, et al., v.
Winkleman, et al.: Mayer
Unified School District and
Gadsen Unified School District
sought a declaration that over
800 easements and rights of
way granted by the State Land
Department between 1929 and
1967, primarily to the Arizona
Department of Transportation
and many county and local
governments, were void for
failure to pay compensation.
If the school districts were
successful, the State Land
Commissioner would have been
responsible for reviewing each
of the easements and rights
of way, and easement holders
would have had to pay current
value to continue holding their
interests. Hundreds of millions
of dollars were at risk. This
year, the Arizona Supreme
Court found that the case could
be dismissed because the
of limitations. The United
States Supreme Court denied
certiorari.
• Gila River Indian Community
v. State: Successfully
negotiated a federal in-lieu
selection in exchange for a
parcel of state trust land within
the exterior boundaries of the
Gila River Indian Reservation.
This means that the State may
select a piece of land in Arizona,
owned by the United States
government, in exchange for
the piece of state-owned land
which is bordered on all sides
by the Gila River Indian Reservation.
The trust land parcel
was appraised at $2,000,000.
A comparable in-lieu parcel will
likely appraise at $30,000,000.
The Gila River Indian Community
also paid the State Land
Department’s $100,000 in-lieu
application fee.
school districts’ claims were
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard • 2009 Annual Report
38