 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 4501 Northpoint LP v. Maricopa County, 1 CA-TX 02-0027,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, February 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayer's acceptance of an offer of judgment from the county in a valuation dispute did not qualify as an adjudication on the merits; thus, the tax court properly denied the taxpayer's request for attorneys' fees.
|
|||||
| Kelly Servs. v. Indus. Comm'n, 1 CA-IC 04-0016,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, February 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In worker's compensation case, ALJ erred in finding an employee's area of residence for loss of earning capacity purposes could not be expanded beyond small town because in rural areas labor market could include larger communities.
|
|||||
| Martin v. Schroeder, 2 CA-CV 2004-0092,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, February 9, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to parents in plaintiff's negligence action, which resulted after he was shot in head, because he failed to show that, at time the parents gave their son gun, they knew or had any reason to believe that he was "unlawful user" of marijuana within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.S. § 922.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Romley v. Hauser, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0321-SA,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 9, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's prior offenses were committed more than five years before current offense, they were not historical prior felony convictions as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604. Thus, it was proper for defendant to receive an enhanced sentence on the basis of the prior convictions under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-702.02.
|
|||||
| City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0033-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 10, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-505, a city's suit to remove non-conforming billboards was not time-barred because the applicable limitations period was tolled as to those claims filed before the limitations period's effective date, and, as to those claims filed after that date, the city had one year from that date to file the claims, and it did so.
|
|||||
| James H. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 CA-JV 04-0055,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, February 15, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the father was incarcerated for a lengthy prison sentence, the court was permitted to terminate his parental rights pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(4) (Supp. 2003); reunification efforts were not required.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Goddard v. Bravano, 1 CA-CV 03-512, 1 CA-CV 03-822 (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, February 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner was implicated in organized crime. In a civil forfeiture proceeding, forfeiture provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2314 or Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-4301 to -4315 (1999) did not violate Double Jeopardy Clause because the statutes were civil, not criminal, in nature. Forfeiture also did not violate state constitutional provisions.
|
|||||
| Grand Canyon Trust v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 1 CA-CV 04-0079,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, February 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arizona Corporation Commission's decision authorizing the construction of a fourth coal-powered electric generating unit at power company's generating station was not erroneous because Commission properly balanced need for power against desire to minimize environmental and ecological costs to Arizona as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.07(B).
|
|||||
| State v. Goracke, 1 CA-CR 03-0187 PRPC,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, February 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The prisoner mailbox rule applied to petitions for review by the Arizona Supreme Court; therefore, a petition for review was timely where it was mailed from petitioner's correctional center on the deadline and received by the clerk's office in a time frame consistent with petitioner's certification.
|
|||||
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. |
