 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Nelson, 1 CA-CR 05-0951,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A person may be convicted as an accomplice to an offense with a culpable mental state of criminal negligence; thus, the superior court did not err in instructing the jury on accomplice liability, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-301 and 13-303, with respect to a negligent homicide, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1102(A).
|
|||||
| Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc., 2 CA-CV 2006-0065,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A hearing aid was not an "assistive device" as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1351(1) and the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to the company on the consumer's complaint based on alleged defects in two hearing aids he purchased from the company. Consumer was not entitled to attorney fees under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1355(C).
|
|||||
| Haywood Secs., Inc. v. Ehrlich, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0280-SA,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By electronically affixing "/s/ Kenneth L. Fields" to two orders, a trial court judge clearly demonstrated his intent to authenticate both documents, and therefore they were "signed" for purposes of Ariz. R. Civ. P. 58(a), also, as parties agreed, language of the orders expressly stated they were meant to be final judgments for rule 58(a) purposes.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Thomas v. Klein, 1 CA-SA 06-0173,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A superior court erred by ordering the deposition of a crime victim where an offense was a Class 1 misdemeanor because the amended definition of "criminal offense" under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4401(6) unconstitutionally limited the categories of persons protected under Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1(A)(5).
|
|||||
| Arizona Together v. Brewer, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0277-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the two provisions contained in a voter-initiated proposition defining marriage shared both topicality and interrelatedness, the provisions were sufficiently related to a common purpose to satisfy the separate amendment rule and did not violate Ariz. Const. art. XXI, § 1.
|
|||||
| State v. Mangum, 2 CA-CR 2005-0384,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, January 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was originally convicted, in a justice court, of a domestic violence charge; this conviction was vacated. Defendant was convicted of being a prohibited possessor with a deadly weapon. Despite the reversal of underlying conviction, weapon's conviction remained because defendant was status offender under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3101(A)(6)(d).
|
|||||
| Goddard v. Fields, 1 CA-SA 06-0114,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, January 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney General requested special action relief in underlying lawsuit brought against real estate developer. Appellate court denied relief because of narrowness of absolute immunity exception, and Attorney General failed to provide sufficient support to demonstrate press releases were part of public duties under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 41-191 to -198.
|
|||||
| Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Reinstein, No. 1 CA-SA 06-0274,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parents were entitled to a jury trial in the termination of parental rights action because the proceedings against the parents had begun and their request for a jury had been filed before December 31, 2006, although the trial would not begin until after January 1, 2007, the effective date of the delayed repeal clause of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-223.
|
|||||
| State v. Crawford, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-06-0205-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's prior conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1708 was improperly used as a prior conviction enhancement under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(N) because it did not qualify since it could have been violated by conduct that was not a felony under Arizona law; the federal indictment could not have been used to determine if § 13-604(N) applied.
|
|||||
| State v. Rubiano, 2 CA-CR 2006-0050-PR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, January 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Postconviction relief under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32 was properly denied because corpus delicti rule did not apply to admissions made by defendant at an in-court guilty plea to attempted sexual conduct with a minor because statements were made under the supervision and protection of the trial court which ensured that the plea was knowing and voluntary.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
