 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ariz. Soc'y of Pathologists v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 1 CA-CV 01-0029,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pathologists, who were denied payment by state health care cost containment system for indirect services, were entitled to enforce governor's regulatory review council ruling that denial of payment was an illegal and unenforceable rule.
|
|||||
| Mara M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 CA-JV 01-0059,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother constantly disappeared, and child protective services was only able to contact her when she was in jail for prostitution. Thus, serving motion to terminate parental rights upon her attorney was constitutional under circumstances.
|
|||||
| Power P.E.O., Inc. v. Employees Ins. of Wausau, 1 CA-CV 01-0125,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Preliminary injunction requiring letter of credit from employer was proper remedy where insurer had no adequate remedy at law should employer fail to reimburse insurer for claims.
|
|||||
| Sherman v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2 CA-CV 99-0128,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for the title companies was upheld because the salesperson was not a third-party beneficiary or an assignee or a party the escrow instructions, and thus the title companies did not owe the salesperson any duty.
|
|||||
| State v. McMahon, 1 CA-CR 01-0333,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, January 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The offense of exhibition of speed prohibited the quick acceleration of a vehicle for the purpose of drawing public attention to the swiftness of one's vehicle, and there was no constitutional infirmity with respect to such prohibition.
|
|||||
| State v. McKeon, 1 CA-CR 00-0297,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, January 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Non-abusive use of prescribed medication could be relevant to whether person accused of murder had requisite state of mind, but not where defendant's actions prior to shooting, during shooting, and during flight were systematic and deliberate.
|
|||||
| Hurley Trucking Co. v. State ex rel. Ariz. DOT, 1 CA-TX 99-0020,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, January 29, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Tax Court erred in reversing the department of transportation's final order denying refund claim for fuel and motor carrier taxes by a transport company because the 1988 statutory amendment was no longer clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous.
|
|||||
| State v. Lehr, Supreme Court No. CR-97-0317-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, January 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion when it found that the probative value of DNA evidence from a Frye hearing was outweighed by the risk of juror confusion regarding the protocol, validation studies, and match window of the DNA analysis.
|
|||||
| State v. Spreitz, Supreme Court No. CR-00-0569-PC,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, January 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By raising one claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a direct appeal, all later ineffectiveness of trial counsel claims were precluded.
|
|||||
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. |
