 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cranmer v. State, 2 CA-CV 2002-0005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, January 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The superior court abused its discretion in granting special action relief, as it was defendant's burden to present evidence that the State acted arbitrarily or capriciously by resuming prosecution, not the prosecutor's burden.
|
|||||
| State v. Olcan, 1 CA-CR 01-1069,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, January 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant should have been granted reasonable opportunity to arrange for competent person to draw independent sample of defendant's blood and analyze that sample, regardless whether State collected, analyzed, and preserved its own sample.
|
|||||
| State v. Sepahi, 2 CA-CR 2001-0403, 2 CA-CR 2002-0163-PR (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, January 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions stood, but the trial court erred in classifying the offenses as dangerous crimes against a child and in imposing consecutive sentences. Defendant did not state a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
|
|||||
| Mace v. Indus. Comm'n, 2 CA-IC 2002-0010,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counseling services were reasonably required to treat the effects of the applicant's industrial injury. The services qualified as compensable services regardless of whether the services were provided, in part, to a third party.
|
|||||
| Otel H. v. Barton, 1 CA-SA 02-0153,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On juvenile's petition for special action, jurisdiction was accepted, but relief was denied; juvenile court plainly erred in finding probable cause from face of citation containing nothing but officer's belief that accused committed named offense.
|
|||||
| Otel H. v. Barton, 1 CA-SA 02-0153,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judicial finding of probable cause could not be based on merely the officer's asserted belief that accused committed the offense, and certification by officer, standing alone, was insufficient to support judicial finding of probable cause.
|
|||||
| State v. Gonzales-Perez, 2 CA-CR 2001-0067,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred when it dismissed case against defendants with prejudice, where they had not demonstrated, nor had the record reflected, that they were prejudiced by the State's delays and discovery violations and State had not acted in bad faith.
|
|||||
| State v. Mitchell, 1 CA-CR 01-0447,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, January 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court held that, after construing phrase "effecting an arrest" in the resisting arrest statute, a suspect who had already been handcuffed could subsequently commit crime of resisting arrest.
|
|||||
| Campbell v. Szl Props., 1 CA-CV 01-0050,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, February 4, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A vacated judgment could not have any collateral estoppel effect. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the companies and quieting title in them where the owners had not had the chance to litigate their dispute.
|
|||||
| Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., 1 CA-CV 01-0395,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, February 4, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arizona products liability law was not expanded to include successor corporations not involved in placing product into stream of commerce. Whether successor should take on risk-spreading role of original manufacturer was left to legislature.
|
|||||
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. |
