bona fide claim in Arizona

2019His argument finds support in the reasoning of our supreme court that "a charge of robbery fails where the attempt is to collect a bona fide debt, since, to constitute that offense, there must be an animus furandi and this cannot exist if the person takes the property under a bona fide claim of right." Bauer v. State , 45 Ariz. 358 , 363-64, 43 P.2d 203 (1935) ; see also State v. Hardin , 99 Ariz. 56 , 59, 406 P.2d 406 (1965) (affirming Bauer 's dicta). ¶21 Since Bauer , however, our legislature revised the Arizona criminal code to reflect that "property of another" can include "property in wh

2019His argument finds support in the reasoning of our supreme court that "a charge of robbery fails where the attempt is to collect a bona fide debt, since, to constitute that offense, there must be an animus furandi and this cannot exist if the person takes the property under a bona fide claim of right." Bauer v. State , 45 Ariz. 358 , 363-64, 43 P.2d 203 (1935) ; see also State v. Hardin , 99 Ariz. 56 , 59, 406 P.2d 406 (1965) (affirming Bauer 's dicta). ¶21 Since Bauer , however, our legislature revised the Arizona criminal code to reflect that "property of another" can include "property in wh

2019Our supreme court "has not yet considered whether the claim of right defense as enunciated in Bauer v. State survived the enactment of [that portion of] the new criminal code." State v. Schaefer , 163 Ariz. 626 , 629, 790 P.2d 281 , 284 (App. 1990).

2019Our supreme court "has not yet considered whether the claim of right defense as enunciated in Bauer v. State survived the enactment of [that portion of] the new criminal code." State v. Schaefer , 163 Ariz. 626 , 629, 790 P.2d 281 , 284 (App. 1990).

1981In spite of our criticism in State v. Lewis, 121 Ariz. 155 , 589 P.2d 29 (App.1978) the rule in Arizona is that a charge of robbery fails where the attempt is to collect a bona fide debt, since, to constitute that offense, there must be an animus furandi and this cannot exist if the person takes the property under a bona fide claim of right.

1981In spite of our criticism in State v. Lewis, 121 Ariz. 155 , 589 P.2d 29 (App.1978) the rule in Arizona is that a charge of robbery fails where the attempt is to collect a bona fide debt, since, to constitute that offense, there must be an animus furandi and this cannot exist if the person takes the property under a bona fide claim of right.

1978Bauer v. State, 45 Ariz. 358 , 43 P.2d 203 (1935); State v. Harris, 73 Ariz. 138 , 238 P.2d 957 (1951); State v. Hardin, 99 Ariz. 56 , 406 P.2d 406 (1965). 1 In the first two cases, the rule is mere dicta.

1978Bauer v. State, 45 Ariz. 358 , 43 P.2d 203 (1935); State v. Harris, 73 Ariz. 138 , 238 P.2d 957 (1951); State v. Hardin, 99 Ariz. 56 , 406 P.2d 406 (1965). 1 In the first two cases, the rule is mere dicta.

1976We believe under the facts and circumstances the court properly exercised its discretion in refusing the injunctive relief.” (Emphasis added). 40 Ariz. at 507-508 , 14 P.2d at 482 . *273 The Court then continued quoting from a Connecticut decision: “ ‘Where, however, there has been an innocent mistake or a bona fide claim of right on the part of the defendant or laches on the part of the plaintiff, or where the conduct of the defendant was not willful and inexcusable, and where the granting of the injunction would cause damage to the defendant greatly disproportionate to the injury of which pl

1976We believe under the facts and circumstances the court properly exercised its discretion in refusing the injunctive relief.” (Emphasis added). 40 Ariz. at 507-508 , 14 P.2d at 482 . *273 The Court then continued quoting from a Connecticut decision: “ ‘Where, however, there has been an innocent mistake or a bona fide claim of right on the part of the defendant or laches on the part of the plaintiff, or where the conduct of the defendant was not willful and inexcusable, and where the granting of the injunction would cause damage to the defendant greatly disproportionate to the injury of which pl

1973State v. Spratt, supra; Thomas v. State, 54 Ga.App. 747 , 189 S.E. 68 (1936).

1973State v. Spratt, supra; Thomas v. State, 54 Ga.App. 747 , 189 S.E. 68 (1936).

1932R. 331, 139 Atl. 508 , a situation was presented somewhat similar to the one here and in upholding the trial court, in refusing injunctive relief, the appellate court stated the facts and its conclusion as follows: “Where, however, there has been an innocent mistake or a bona fide claim of right on the part of the defendant or laches on the part of the plaintiff, or where the conduct of the defendant was not willful and inexcusable, and where the granting of the injunction would cause damage to the defendant greatly disproportionate to the injury of which plaintiff complains, and it appears th

1932R. 331, 139 Atl. 508 , a situation was presented somewhat similar to the one here and in upholding the trial court, in refusing injunctive relief, the appellate court stated the facts and its conclusion as follows: “Where, however, there has been an innocent mistake or a bona fide claim of right on the part of the defendant or laches on the part of the plaintiff, or where the conduct of the defendant was not willful and inexcusable, and where the granting of the injunction would cause damage to the defendant greatly disproportionate to the injury of which plaintiff complains, and it appears th

1932R. 331, 139 Atl. 508 , a situation was presented somewhat similar to the one here and in upholding the trial court, in refusing injunctive relief, the appellate court stated the facts and its conclusion as follows: “Where, however, there has been an innocent mistake or a bona fide claim of right on the part of the defendant or laches on the part of the plaintiff, or where the conduct of the defendant was not willful and inexcusable, and where the granting of the injunction would cause damage to the defendant greatly disproportionate to the injury of which plaintiff complains, and it appears th

1898It is a sufficient defense to. such a proceeding to show that the . . . defendant had claim or color of title made or acquired in good faith.” In Wright v. Mattison, 18 How. 50 -56, it was said by Mr. Justice Daniel: “The courts have concurred, it is believed, without an exception, in defining ‘color of title’ to be that which in appearance is title, but which in reality is no title. ...