 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Acuna v. Kroack, 2 CA-CV 2005-0049,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A jury's finding that a wife was at fault on a negligent entrustment claim was insufficient where there was no evidence that the wife (who permitted her husband to drive) either knew or should have known of the husband's alleged incompetence to drive when she permitted him to do so just before the accident.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Kelly, 2 CA-SA 2005-0102,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to compel was reversed because the trial court judge abused his discretion by compelling the doctor to disclose the amounts paid to settle prior medical malpractice lawsuits against him, when the amounts were irrelevant.
|
|||||
| State v. Urquidez, 2 CA-CR 2004-0419,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences for defendant's offenses of possession of deadly weapon by convicted felon and aggravated assault with weapon because the offenses were separate acts and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-708 required consecutive sentences for multiple counts in the absence of additional fact-finding by the court.
|
|||||
| Hanson Aggregates Ariz., Inc. v. Rissling Constr. Group, Inc., 1 CA-CV 03-0633,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, February 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing the concrete supplier's claim on a lien-discharge bond because the contractor did not serve notice of the bond "upon recordation" as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1004(C), thus concrete supplier could assert his bond claim anytime within 6 months after discovering the bond existed as provided in § 33-1004(F).
|
|||||
| 4501 Northpoint LP v. Maricopa County, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-05-0124-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A taxpayer who accepted an offer of judgment from a county in the taxpayer's favor under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 68 had prevailed by an adjudication on the merits and was therefore eligible for a fee award under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348(B) (2003).
|
|||||
| State v. Gomez, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-05-0062-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of marijuana and methamphetamine possession; she was previously indicted for manslaughter, which was considered a violent crime. Trial court erred in ruling defendant was ineligible for probation; defendant was eligible for probation pursuant to Proposition 200, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01, because indictment was dismissed.
|
|||||
| In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source, Arizona Supreme Court No. WC-02-0003-IR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decree issued in 1935 precluded tribe from asserting claims to water from mainstem of river beyond rights granted in decree because amended complaint in that litigation was directed only to the parties' rights to the mainstem, but decree did not preclude claims to tributaries.
|
|||||
| United Dairymen of Ariz. v. Schugg, 1 CA-CV 04-0611,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, February 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In breach of contract suit, arising out of an agreement pursuant to Arizona Cooperative Marketing Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-2001 to -2025, dairy association was not entitled to liquidated damages against farmers on breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim because these damages were limited to contract's express terms.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
