 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. Contes, 1 CA-SA 05-0266,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a special action arising from a post-dissolution dispute between a father and mother, because appellate court's previous memorandum decision remanding two issues for further proceedings did not require that those issues be tried anew, the father was not entitled to peremptorily change the judge pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 42(f)(1)(E).
|
|||||
| Estate of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., 1 CA-CV 05-0129,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3108(4) limited husband's authority as late-appointed personal representative for deceased wife's estate, and pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3709, he could not prosecute her Adult Protective Services Act (APSA), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 46-455(B) claim against the healthcare facility, and summary judgment to facility was proper.
|
|||||
| Falcon v. Maricopa County, 1 CA-CV 04-0801,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by entering summary judgment for the county because the deceased hospital patient's children provided evidence that they timely served a notice of claim on one member of the county board of supervisors, which satisfied the notice-of-claim requirement of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01(A) and complied with Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(i).
|
|||||
| Mutschler v. City of Phoenix, 1 CA-CV 04-0203,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Operation of swingers' club that included live sex acts was public nuisance for which compensation was not required. Because public nuisances were not protectable property interests under Fifth Amendment and Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 17, city's enforcement of ordinance did not implicate Takings Clause and owners were not entitled to compensation.
|
|||||
| Forszt v. Rodriguez, 2 CA-CV 2005-0216,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because referendum proponent restored presumption of validity by showing that petitions were circulated with ordinance, trial court correctly found that signature sheets submitted to county recorder for verification were not invalid even though proponent failed to file petition with ordinance attached as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-121(A)(3).
|
|||||
| Manic v. Dawes, 2 CA-CV 2005-0128,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1381(F) created a substantive right to a jury trial in misdemeanor DUI cases, and it did not violate the single subject requirement of Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, § 13.
|
|||||
| Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima County, 2 CA-CV 2005-0073,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for county because county complied with notice and hearing provisions in Ariz. Rev. Stat.§ 11-829, and owners of adjacent parcels were not entitled to personal notice of county supervisor board's meeting where board had no authority to act until it received commission's zoning recommendation.
|
|||||
| Kenneth T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 CA-JV 05-0039,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-537(A) required termination adjudication hearing, contested trial was not sole method to resolve issue of termination of father's parental rights; it did not preclude resolving, where appropriate, termination issues by summary judgment; Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 46(D) provided motions for summary judgment could be filed.
|
|||||
| In re Commitment of Flemming, 2 CA-MH 2005-0005-SP,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in denying appellant's motion to vacate stay order and dismiss proceedings under Arizona's Sexually Violent Persons (SVP) Act entirely in light of his incarceration because his arrest and conviction for attacking treatment center staff member were in no sense a discharge under SVP Act for purposes of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3704(D).
|
|||||
| Myers v. City of Tempe, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-05-0154-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court erred in holding city liable for other community's fire department's negligent response to decedent's medical emergency because city's decision to enter into multi-city automatic aid and dispatch agreement and to the automatic dispatch were fundamental policy decisions entitled to absolute immunity under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
