|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Arizona - January 30 - January 31, 2007
|
| |
Center Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe, 1 CA-CV 05-0460,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: An apartment owner's allegations that a development project across the street from its existing apartment complex came close to tripling the existing density, doubling the existing mass, and dropping previously required landscape setoffs satisfied the standing requirement as set forth in case law and Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 9-462.06(K) (1996).
|
|
| |
|
| |
Parkinson v. Guadalupe Pub. Safety Ret. Local Bd., 1 CA-CV 06-0238,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: The unchallenged independent medical report accepted by the Guadalupe Public Safety Retirement Local Board established that the employee was physically unable to continue to perform his job; because the employee had met the statutory requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. ?? 38-844(B), 38-842(1), and 38-859, he qualified for a pension.
|
|
| |
State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Grabowski, 1 CA-CV 05-0494,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Judgment in an insurance case was reversed and the case was remanded for new trial, as challenged instruction improperly failed to advise the jury regarding one of the requirements of law, specifically, the requirement that the insurer had reason to believe that the insured would not have agreed to the exclusion at issue.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Gorney v. Meaney, 2 CA-CV 2006-0075,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Plaintiff patient had not complied with the expert witness requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 12-2603, where neither of the patient's expert's affidavits described what disclosures, if any, defendant doctor made concerning the risks prior to performing surgery, and neither affidavit stated that the doctor's actions fell below the standard of care.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback