 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Patches v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 1 CA-IC 08-0027,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, February 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An industrially injured employee was not entitled to receive housekeeping services pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1062(A). Only the Arizona Legislature could extend disability compensation under this statute.
|
|||||
| State v. Osborn, 1 CA-CR 07-0927,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, February 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of the possession or use of dangerous drugs, he stipulated to a prior felony conviction; however, the trial court never advised him as to the proper sentencing range. Because the colloquy did not comply with Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.2, the trial court erred by sentencing defendant with the prior felony conviction.
|
|||||
| City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 1 CA-CV 07-0756,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 3, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Condemnee's right to payment under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1127(B) was not subject to the automatic stay provision of Ariz. R. Civ. P. 62(g). The condemnee's right to receive monies without delay following the final judgment was a substantive right.
|
|||||
| Hart v. Hart, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0794,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 3, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The custody order in favor of the father was vacated and remanded for family court to make additional findings and conclusions, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403, as a significant number of factors were not addressed. The order concerning supervised parenting time was remanded for application of proper standard, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-410(D) and -411(B).
|
|||||
| Langerman Law Offices, P.A. v. Glen Eagles at the Princess Resort, LLC, 1 CA-CV 08-0104,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 3, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney had no charging lien against a client because after the offset of an award of sanctions under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 68(g), there was no net judgment in favor of the client and therefore, there was nothing to which a charging lien could attach.
|
|||||
| Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Cendejas, 1 CA-CV 08-0001,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, March 3, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of insurer subrogee regarding fire loss was proper because once trial court determined that Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) notice of nonparty fault was inadequate, both the Rule and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2506(B) barred consideration of the allocation of fault to any other possible tortfeasors.
|
|||||
| Vig v. NIX Project II P'ship, No. 1 CA-CV 08-0112,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 5, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Affidavit of disclosure was properly served, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-422, when it was furnished to buyer at least seven days before closing, regardless whether buyer acknowledged receipt. Affidavit was adequate, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-480, when it placed buyer on inquiry notice of relevant conditions. Buyer was barred from invoking right to rescind.
|
|||||
| Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. Ballinger, 1 CA-SA 08-0282,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, March 5, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public interest organization was entitled to permissive intervention under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 24(b) in wrongful death action filed against corporation for limited purpose of access to certain discovery as the motion, although filed post-judgment, was filed timely on June 11, 2008, following the entry of dismissal on May 1, 2008, after a settlement.
|
|||||
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. |
