The Arizona Supreme Court will hear arguments at the UA tomorrow on Tucson billboards owned by Clear Channel Communications.
The annual visit is part of the Court's continuing outreach efforts to bring its courtroom activities to local communities and citizens across the state.
Tom Augerton, a public information officer for the Arizona Supreme Court, said the Court's visit to the UA's law school is an annual fall tradition. Augerton said he thought the tradition was more than 10 years old.
Augerton said while the Court receives 1,200 requests to hear cases a year, the Court hears approximately 50 cases a year.
Toni Massaro, dean of the James E. Rogers College of Law, said the visit gives students a chance to see how the state's highest court works.
"We're very thankful to the justices and the litigants for providing the campus community with this insight into the workings of the Court," Massaro said.
Augerton said the Court will hear oral arguments for two cases. The first case is a pending case filed by the City of Tucson, seeking the removal of 122 nonconforming billboards owned by Clear Channel communications.
According to the City of Tucson, the billboards were allegedly out of compliance with city zoning and building codes. The specific concerns about the billboards varied. Some of the allegations included illegal lighting, placement in historic zones and size.
According to the Arizona Supreme Court Web site, at the time of the complaint, filed July 18, 2000, there was no statute of limitations for enforcing nonconforming billboards.
However, a newly passed statute of limitation took effect the day after the suit was filed.
The new statute states a city must cite any violations regarding outdoor advertising and signs "within two years of discovering the violation."
Clear Channel moved for a summary judgment, seeking a dismissal of the complaint, because the company said the city knew about the billboards in question for more than two years before the statute took effect.
The trial court the case originally appeared in granted summary judgment. The case then moved to the Court of Appeals, where the same judgment was made. The City of Tucson appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.
The Court will hear arguments on whether the new statute can be applied to the city of Tucson's complaint, as it filed before the statute took effect.
A second case will be heard regarding a lawsuit filed against Chandler's Firebird Raceway.
A man who participated in a race at the raceway is suing the raceway for allegedly being negligent in rescuing him and rendering medical aid after his car crashed during a drag race.
Court documents state plaintiff Charles Phelps signed a "Release and Covenant Not to Sue" and a "Release and Waiver of Liability, Assumption or Risk, and Indemnity Agreement" before entering the race.
During the race, Phelps's car crashed into a wall and was engulfed by fire. He was severely burned.
Phelps alleges that Firebird Raceway was negligent in rescuing him and rendering medical aid. By signing the "Release and Covenant Not to Sue," Phelps was accepting that the raceway might be negligent in rescue and medical aid, and he assumed that risk by signing and racing anyway.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Firebird on the basis of the release and waiver. The court of appeals affirmed the lower court's decision.
The Supreme Court will be reviewing the case and hearing oral arguments in the case. No decision is expected to be reached.
In addition to hearing oral arguments, there will be a brief question period when the public can address the Court, Augerton said.
The Supreme Court hearings will start at 1:30 p.m. and will be held at the James E. Rogers College of Law.