Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

130 Ariz. 464

Belcher v. Raines

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided September 30, 1981

Court of Appeals of Arizona · decided 1981-09-30

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1991

2 state decisions

Applies AZ 12 § 12-401

Relies on Sil-Flo Corporation v. Bowen

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-09-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

¶2Appellant, an inmate at the Arizona State Prison in Florence, Pinal County, Arizona, filed a special action in the Pima County Superior Court against the prison administrator. Rule 4(b) of the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, 17A A.R.S., states that a special action shall, in the case of state officer or body, be brought either in Maricopa County or in the county of the plaintiff’s residence. This section is in general accord with Arizona’s venue statute, A.R.S. § 12-401. See State Bar Committee Note, Rule 4(b).

¶3Appellant contended that since his home is in Tucson and not the prison, his residence is Pima County. The trial court did not agree and dismissed the action. We affirm.

¶4Appellant argues that the word “residence” as used in the rule means “domicile”. We do not agree. The purpose of the venue portion of the rule is to permit the plaintiff to have the action brought in a convenient place. Cf. Sil-FIo Corporation v. Bowen, 98 Ariz. 77, 402 P.2d 22 (1965). If he is living in Pinal County but is domiciled in Pima County, he does not have to go to Pima County to file a special action. We hold the word “residence” as used in the rule means where the petitioner is living without regard to his domicile.

¶5Affirmed.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and BIRDSALL, J., concur.
/130/ariz/464 · .json · Public domain