Chandler v. Roosevelt

Argument summary

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

1. Counsel for the City of Chandler argued that Arizona precedent requires the legislature to expressly and definitively state its intent to subject the state or its political subdivisions to a statute of limitations, which ARS § 12-821 fails to do.
2. The City's counsel contended that the common law doctrine of nullum tempus applies based on the identity of the plaintiff, and because § 12-821 defines claims against public entities without specifying the state as a plaintiff, it does not abrogate this immunity.
3. Counsel for the Roosevelt Water Conservation District argued that the statutory text 'all claims against any public entity' is broad enough to override nullum tempus, comparing it favorably to the 'notwithstanding any other statute' language upheld in Glen Eyre.
4. The RWCD's counsel emphasized that the 1994 amendment changing the statute from covering 'personal injury actions' to 'all claims' represented a monumental change intended to include claims brought by government entities.
5. Justices questioned whether interpreting 'all claims' as overriding nullum tempus would effectively eliminate the common law doctrine entirely, noting that other statutes use similar broad language without explicitly mentioning the state as a plaintiff.
6. The City's counsel distinguished Glen Eyre by arguing that case relied on express 'notwithstanding' language to apply to the state, whereas § 12-821 lacks such definitive expression regarding state plaintiffs.
7. Counsel for the City argued that preserving nullum tempus serves a public policy purpose by allowing government entities time to resolve disputes without immediate litigation, thereby protecting public funds.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT49M3S · Captions available