EFG et al v ACC et al

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred by failing to apply the *Darrendahl* test, which requires only substantial similarity between a modern cause of action and a common law antecedent to trigger jury rights.
2. The Chief Justice questioned how a jury trial would function given Article 15, Section 19 explicitly grants the Corporation Commission the power to impose fines, rather than requiring them to be sought through court litigation.
3. Petitioners contend that Arizona is an affirmative waiver state where jury rights are presumed, and if a defendant demands a jury in an administrative proceeding, the matter should be dismissed and transferred to Superior Court for a jury trial.
4. State counsel argues that Article 15, Section 19 expressly authorizes the Commission itself, not a court or jury, to enforce rules by imposing fines, making the provision self-contained and distinct from general jury rights.
5. Commission counsel distinguishes statutory securities fraud from common law fraud under *Darrendahl*, noting that the statute lacks intent elements found in common law and serves broader regulatory purposes beyond private compensation.
6. Petitioners assert that the state constitution’s jury clause provides greater protection than the federal Seventh Amendment because it lacks textual limitations regarding value in controversy or the common law/equity distinction.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT49M39S · Captions available