HB2040 makes a targeted procedural change to Arizona appellate practice by adding a new statute governing petitions for rehearing en banc in courts of record. The bill allows a party to seek rehearing en banc, requires the petition to state that the panel decision conflicts with another decision of the same court and cite the conflicting cases, and provides that en banc review is generally disfavored unless needed to maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions. It also authorizes a majority of active, non-disqualified appellate judges to order en banc rehearing on their own initiative or in response to a petition.
The bill sets a 14-day deadline to file a petition for rehearing en banc after judgment, or after an amended decision if the panel later changes its ruling. If rehearing en banc is granted, the court may decide the case without more briefing or argument, request additional briefing or argument, or issue any other appropriate order. Overall, the measure is a technical court-procedure bill focused on how appellate courts manage internal review of panel decisions rather than changing substantive rights or causes of action.
Impact
HB2040 would add A.R.S. § 12-120.25 to Title 12, creating a specific statutory framework for en banc rehearing in Arizona appellate courts. The practical effect is to formalize filing requirements, timing, and the standard for when en banc review should be considered, while preserving broad discretion for the court to grant, deny, or manage rehearing requests. It affects litigants in appellate cases and the judges of Arizona’s courts of record, but does not alter substantive law outside court procedure.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been viewed largely as a procedural or technical court-administration measure, as reflected by its caption and the absence of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials. Voting was generally favorable but not unanimous: it passed House Judiciary 6-3 with a do-pass-amended style result, cleared House Rules 7-0, and passed House Third Reading 32-27. That pattern suggests support from many members for clarifying appellate procedure, alongside some reservations about the need for or scope of the change.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether the bill was necessary and whether it appropriately codifies en banc rehearing standards in statute. The close House Third Reading vote indicates some members were concerned about changing appellate procedure or about the implications of making en banc review more formalized, while supporters likely viewed it as a clarifying technical correction that promotes uniformity and predictability in appellate decisions. No committee transcript was provided, so specific arguments from proponents or opponents are not available.