http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2016/CV14-0817.pdf

FACTS: Dude who has a bar seven (-7) cattle brand placed on the left rib wants to take his beasts from California to Arizona. He asks the Arizona Department of Agriculture for permission. Another dude in Arizona with a bar seven cattle brand placed on the left hip objects, NO FUCKING WAY; THAT'S MINE. And the statute says you can't register two identical designs.

ISSUE: Does the law allow identical brands on different parts of the cow?

HELD: Yes. Despite statutory language providing that "[n]o two brands of the same design or figure shall be adopted or recorded," the Arizona Department of Agriculture may approve identical brands if the brands are registered to different locations on the animal.

DISSENT: You fools. The prohibition on having the same DESIGN is completely separate from the statutory language you rely on concerning the LOCATION the design is placed.

DEEP ANALYSIS: Dissents are rare in Arizona appellate cases, and they're usually right when a judge goes to the effort of writing one. Here, the majority bared its unscholarly motives when it was, like, "Yeah, but if we don't allow the same brand in different places, it might invalidate other brands, and that's bad." The California cattledood should have been told to come up with a different brand.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31144562)

This is cutting edge shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31144575)

Perhaps we should offer our services to petition for supreme court review.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31144712)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31149937)

at least that's what it looks like

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31392320)

Minority: "WTF? This is directly contradictory to the law."

tbf,the majority opinion seems more efficient in this case but represents quite a transfer of power to the court

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31150026)

Look at this jibberish:

"The ambiguity exists by virtue of the language of A.R.S. § 3-1261 and related statutes, read in context with each other. Accordingly, we must look, inter alia, to the Department’s longstanding construction of the statutes. *****To do otherwise might render invalid hundreds of brands the Department accepted for recording over the past several decades based on their owners’ promises to apply the brands in different locations than prior similar recorded brands were to be applied.***** "

What do the consequences of "do[ing] otherwise" have to do with the interpretive task at hand?

Nothing. That's what.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31154793)

and results driven reasoning

and an impermissible delegation of power to agency that exceeds plain statutory text

i mean wtf. wtf.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31156945)

Motions for reconsideration due by August 24, 2016.

Petitions for supreme court review due by September 8, 2016.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31170666)

http://bit.ly/2cms4Ke

May justice be done.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31392299)

I hope they tear the lower court a new one

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31392321)

May the Stambaugh cows be vindicated and cattle law repaired.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#32713826)

is why we got into law

fuck this bullshit. this pisses me off so much.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31400584)

Right now, it's taking about four months for the supreme court to consider petitions for review, and then it takes a while for them to get around to issuing the order to grant or deny.

The state got an extension until October 28 to file its response to the petition. So I'd guess that the petition will be decided around April.

Here's the supreme court's docket: http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/appella/ASC/CV/CV160217.PDF

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31582282)

http://www.law360.com/articles/826695/placement-is-key-for-dueling-livestock-brands-court-finds

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#31664436)

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/aacc/appella/ASC/CV/CV160217.PDF

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#32010468)

http://i.xomf.com/gspkr.png

May there be justice for Stambaugh's cows!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#32713763)

https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/21/OralArgumentCalendars/3_7_2017%20OA%20Calendar%20with%20Recusals.pdf

Maybe you can raise your hand and ask whether they'll let you say a few words.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#32766255)

https://www.azcourts.gov/AZ-Supreme-Court/Live-Archived-Video

I haven't watched it yet to see whether things are looking good for the Stambaugh cows, but I did notice that I had to turn off some of my ad blocking to get the video to load correctly.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#32782045)

(1) The state's attorney was having a rough time, but he shut up one of the justices when the justice was, like, "Have you even seen branding?" and the lawyers was, like, "Motherfucker, I grew up on a ranch. I've done it. It's easy."

38:44 - context

39:09 - rancher-lawyer revealed

(2) On whole, I think things went better for Stambaugh's cows. May justice be done.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#32795775)

Be sure to update your Westlaw and Lexis alerts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#32797775)

¶1 Arizona Revised Statute § 3-1261(B) provides that no two brands of the same design or figure shall be adopted or recorded. Nonetheless, the Arizona Department of Agriculture (“Department”) allowed Eureka Springs to record a “bar seven” brand (—7), even though it was identical to a previously recorded brand owned by David Stambaugh, because it was placed on a different location on the animals. We hold that the plain language of the statute precludes the Department from recording “two brands of the same design or figure” regardless of their location.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#33910822)

MAGA

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#35394123)

to be fair, it only felt like 2, maybe 3 years ago, but still

allahu akbar and God bless america!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#44622573)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/arizona-high-court-rules-for-rancher-in-cattle-brand-fight/2017/08/03/076a27aa-7897-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html

http://i.xomf.com/hnfmk.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#33917440)

https://www.poerkan.com/product/germany-niubian-pills/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#47894980)

https://archive.is/fOuel

Sometimes, it was the arcane cases that were notable for their importance, like a 2017 case about cattle brands, he said. The case tested an Arizona law that prevented identical brands, and whether the location of the brand mattered. The unanimous opinion written by Brutinel on its surface dealt with cattle brands but set a lasting framework for how courts interpret statutes and is often cited in other court rulings.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3316554&forum_id=2#48280687)