*1 member of not I do believe say with included, is able to
Court, myself does evidence certainty what
any degree of A jury’s verdict. not influence
or does one heavily on may weigh fact
particular inconse- mind, may seem but
reasonable mind. reasonable in another
quential evi- improper with then, faced
judge, when of rea- group being presented
dence the difficult make minds, must
sonable whether, considering
termination of whole, reasonable those as testimony may testimony upon which
minds the same con- heavily, reach would
weigh testimony had not improper if the
clusion making this determi- In introduced.
been naturally his own allows
nation, judge reaction of others.
reaction mirror issue—
Because the closeness my did re- chips
where come from? — improper testimony
action is that this jurors’ in
material minds determin- Being, my opinion, mate- issue.
rial, prejudicial its introduction was
regardless of whether these statements experts,
were material its introduc-
tion reversal. would, remand therefore, reverse and
I
for new trial.
555 P.2d 677 HERZBERG, Appellant,
Arthur L. DAVID, Acting Real Com Estate
Victor M. missioner zona, Appellee. 1 CA-CIV
No. Herrick, P.A., Berry by Richard S. & Berry, Tempe, appellant. for Babbitt, Gen., Atty. Bruce E. Howard July 20, Phoenix, Roberts, Jr., Atty. Gen., T. Asst. appellee. Sept. 23, 1976. Denied OPINION 26, 1976. Denied Petition for Oct.
HATHAWAY, Judge. Department Real Estate ap- revoked pellant’s salesman’s did license. seek a as (N) R4—28-19 of the Administrative Rules and Regulations of the of Arizona State Commission, Real superi- but *2 419 or the over agency court superior review. The administrative court of the granted appellee’s subject motion matter.” person to dismiss. or 12-901(2) and provides:
A.R.S. 32-2159(A) Sec. Secs. When legisla the together, 12-902(B) are read “The decision of the rehearing proce If a intent tive is clear. nying, suspending or revoking a license rule, or by statute provided, either dure is or subject other order or is decision to by an administrative party a aggrieved provisions 12, chap- review. The of title such himself of decision must avail 7, ter article shall apply govern to remedy as condition ministrative review a every to action judicially review a final precedent Roer judicial to See v. review. decision of the (Foot- commissioner.” Superior Court, 4 Ariz.App. omitted) note (1966). 559 12-901(2) (under A.R.S. Sec. Chapter 7, pertinent part pro- Article in6) provides for Rule R4-28-19(N) vides : rehearing of a decision of the Real “2. ‘Administrative or ‘deci- decision’ purpose rehear- of Commission. such any decision, sion’ or deter- means order ing provision tois afford the Commission agency an mination of administrative to opportunity the first correct own its a rendered in case which affects the le- mistakes, thereby eliminating minimiz or gal persons or of rights, privileges duties appeals subsequent relitigation". and which terminates be- proceeding the See Brooks v. Industrial agency. fore the administrative In all Ariz.App. 395, (1975); 73 C. cases in which statute or rule of the and Pro Public Administative Bodies J.S. agency per- administrative or cedure 156a § application rehearing mits an or for a Appellant did not the avail of himself review, other of administrative method right thereby to administrative review application rehearing and an for a or re- revoking order his fi- the license became made, is no view administrative decision “applica- nal. he failed to Since make an party of the agency such final as to is tion for review” which a administrative rehearing applying therefor until or the is, judicial R4-28-19(N) rehearing denied, review is or the decision on re- review1 12- was foreclosed. hearing or review rendered.” provides: And 12-902(B) A.R.S. Sec. Affirmed. review is an adminis- “Unless trative decision within time and in article, the manner in this NOTE: This by cause was decided parties proceeding before the ad- Judges of Division Two as authorized agency ministrative shall barred from be by 12-120(E). A.R.S. Sec. obtaining judicial such review of deci- gov-
sion. under the If terms of Supplemental Opinion on Motion erning agency procedure before an an administrative decision become final has HATHAWAY, Judge. because of failure to document file objection, protest, pe- of an the nature motion has been filed hearing application appellee, appellant concurred, tition for or for ad- in which purpose review within the time al- for the calling ministrative to the court’s law, prior lowed attention the decision shall not law in jurisdiction subject judicial parties be under might review the which both feel mandate provisions except contrary for the appellee’s article result. We commend purpose jurisdiction candor questioning after consideration of Commer- challenge jurisdiction. did not the Real Estate lack Commission’s rial Wright, Ins. Co. Life therein, (1946), and cases cited
166P.2d 943 original decision.
we adhere to our Life, it held
In Commercial
that, statutory authority grant a absent has no tribunal
rehearing, quasi-judicial *3 revoke, modify a deci annul or
power to here, as the is not the
sion. Such authority had
real estate necessary to regulations
make rules Chapter 20: and enforce
minister (repealed 32-2125.02 (E). 32-2107 by A.R.S. Sec. replaced Administrative R4-28-19(N) of the Regulations Rules thus Estate Commission zona Real authority. statutory
adopted pursuant had circumstances, the rule
Under these law. and effect of Gibbons force
the same Corporation
v. Arizona There authority to reconsider appellee had
fore appellant’s license
the revocation pointed out the case
rationale of apposite.
motion for
Rehearing denied. This cause
NOTE: was decided
Judges Two as authorized Division Sec. 12-120(E). MARI APPEAL IN Matter of the
In the ACTION COPA COUNTY JUVENILE JS 1308 AND NOS. JS
No. 1 CA-JUV Department A.
Sept. 30, 1976. Denied Oct.
Petition