 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Alvarez, 2 CA-CR 2002-0084,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, January 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a felony murder case, the victim's statement that men beat him and stole his car was an excited utterance under Ariz. R. Evid. 803(2); as police did not know a crime had been committed when they questioned victim, statement was non-testimonial hearsay outside scope of Crawford and its admission did not violate defendant's confrontation rights.
|
|||||
| Hayden Bus. Ctr. Condos. Ass'n v. Pegasus Dev. Corp., 1 CA-CV 03-0143,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, January 25, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commercial builder could not be held liable by subsequent purchasers of its building, with whom it was not in privity, for breach of implied warranty of good workmanship, and the subsequent purchasers could not amend complaint to assert a tort claim.
|
|||||
| Lashonda M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 2 CA-JV 2004-0022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order terminating a teenage mother's parental rights to her child was upheld because the court properly instructed the jury on the meaning of neglect for purposes of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-201(21); the court did not err in allowing the introduction of evidence of a potential adoptive home for the child that had been identified only days earlier.
|
|||||
| Lyons v. State Bd. of Equalization, 1 CA-TX 04-0004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An assessor's incorrect denial of a religious property exemption request constituted a mistake in assessing property taxes pursuant to state statute, authorizing the Arizona's State Board of Equalization to correct the error.
|
|||||
| State v. Pena, 1 CA-CR 03-0305,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, January 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where victim sustained permanent scar to his face, he suffered a "serious and permanent disfigurement" that constituted "serious physical injury" sufficient to support aggravated assault conviction. Injury could not be aggravating sentencing factor.
|
|||||
| Kelley v. Abdo, 2 CA-CV 2004-0052,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, January 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trial court erred in allowing a patient in a medical malpractice case to be cross-examined as to her religious beliefs because such evidence was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, a new trial was required.
|
|||||
| State v. Alire, 2 CA-CR 2004-0044,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, January 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's comment regarding defendant's illegal immigrant status did not invalidate the aggravated sentence imposed, as it was not considered as an aggravating circumstance; moreover, it was an "other factor" under the relevant statute.
|
|||||
| Baker v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 1 CA-TX 03-0006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, February 3, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Amendment of statute that allowed for tax credits when converting vehicles to alternative fuels did not violate Contract Clauses because no contract was created; taxpayers' due process rights were not violated because no vested rights were created.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
