private claim in Arizona

2020Id. at 247 . ¶11 We agree with the superior court that the private factors strongly favor Washington or Idaho as the forum for trial.

2014Id. at ¶ 12 (citing Cal Fed Partners, 156 Ariz. at 246 , 751 P.2d at 562 ). ¶48 With regard to sources of proof, United argues a majority of the witnesses the Callies disclosed in their Rule 26.1 statement reside in Oregon and are therefore unable to be summoned to Arizona for trial.

2014Rejecting a private challenge to petition signatures obtained before the formation of a campaign committee, the court noted that the legislature had expressly disqualified signatures obtained on initiative and referendum petitions before formation of a political committee, “yet provided only a civil penalty for violations of the campaign finance statutes governing candidates, including § 16-903(A).” Id. at 170, ¶ 12, 236 P.3d at 397 .

2014The court “decline[d] to infer a statutory remedy into the campaign finance statutes that the legislature eschewed.” Id. ¶ 11 Turning to the circumstances of this case, A.R.S. § 16-915.01 appears in title 16 (elections and electors), chapter 6 (campaign contributions and expenses), article 1 (general provisions).

2014Id. at ¶ 12 (citing Cal Fed Partners, 156 Ariz. at 246 , 751 P.2d at 562 ). ¶48 With regard to sources of proof, United argues a majority of the witnesses the Callies disclosed in their Rule 26.1 statement reside in Oregon and are therefore unable to be summoned to Arizona for trial.

2005Id.

1894Astiazaran v. Mining Co., 148 U. S. 80 , 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 457, settles the question that no such action could be maintained if the claim had been reported to Congress by the surveyor-general, if commenced before Congress had acted thereon.