 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Kuck, No. 1 CA-CR 03-0987,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of all but one alleged prior conviction sufficiently ensured defendant's potential maximum sentence was less than thirty years and State could not assert more than one prior felony conviction; dismissal occurred prior to start of jury deliberations, and defendant was not entitled to twelve-member jury under Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Miles, 1 CA-SA 05-0303,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, February 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court vacated a bond on appeal set by trial court in a forcible entry and detainer action, where trial court did not set the bond in accordance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1182(B). There was no requirement in the bond or stay that tenant prosecute the appeal to effect or that she pay the rental value of the premises pending appeal.
|
|||||
| Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 2 CA-CV 2005-0117,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Quality assurance records (QARs) for breathalyzers qualified as business records and public records under Ariz. R. Evid. 803 and did not contain evidence against individual DUI defendants; thus, QARs were not testimonial and were admissible without violating Confrontation Clause even though the QAR author was not available for cross-examination.
|
|||||
| Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enter., 2 CA-CV 2005-0129,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Driver could not maintain a personal injury and wrongful death action against the gaming enterprise in state court as the gaming enterprise did not waive immunity for private dram shop actions under 18 U.S.C.S. § 1611 subjecting itself to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-311; the immunity doctrine protected individual tribal-employee defendants.
|
|||||
| Foster v. Weir, 2 CA-CV 2005-0096,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In malpractice suit against orthodontist, trial court erred in awarding fees charged by parents' expert witness for trial preparation and for out-of-state travel because Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(f)(2) only included fees incurred for an expert's time testifying at trial and Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 12-332 and 12-303 limited travel expenses to in-state travel.
|
|||||
| Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 2 CA-CV 2005-0057,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reasoning in Acuar was sound and consistent with Arizona's broad application of collateral source rule, and injured shopper was entitled to claim and recover the full amount of her reasonable medical expenses for which she was charged, without any reduction for the amounts apparently written off by her health care providers pursuant to a contract.
|
|||||
| Slade v. Schneider, 1 CA-SA 05-0129,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2042.A (2003), the Confidentiality Statute, when the Arizona Corporation Commission filed information or documents with a public tribunal, that information and those documents were no longer confidential; thus, Commission had to disclose names of the investors referred to in an affidavit before the court.
|
|||||
| State v. Cleere, 2 CA-CR 2003-0165-PR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was denied relief from his aggravated sentence for attempted murder because serious physical injury was a permissible aggravating factor under Ariz. rev. Stat. § 13-702(C)(1) where neither the infliction of or threat of such injury was an essential element of attempted murder as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-1105, 13-1101, 13-1001.
|
|||||
| Ariz. Commer. Diving Servs., Inc. v. Applied Diving Servs., Inc., 1 CA-CV 05-0082,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court properly upheld the ALJ's decision that held the contractor had violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1151 by bidding on a city contract without a contractor's license because the contractor knowingly ignored the licensing requirement when it submitted its bid and a knowing violation was "fatal" to a claim of substantial compliance.
|
|||||
| Gipson v. Kasey, 1 CA-CV 05-0119,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wrongful death case, summary judgment was improper for defendant because a duty existed where he and the decedent were friends, they had socialized previously, the decedent had asked defendant for pills before, and defendant knew that the decedent and his girlfriend (to whom defendant gave the pills) were together at the party.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
