 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Pipher v. Loo, 1 CA-CV 08-0143,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, March 10, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ariz. R. Evid. 702 and 703, the trial court did not err by allowing the dentist's expert's testimony regarding the cause of lingual nerve damage. However, the trial court erred by refusing to allow the patient's expert's testimony opining that the dentist's breach of the standard of care caused the patient's injury, and prejudiced his case.
|
|||||
| State v. Stock, 1 CA-CR 07-0541,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 10, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-116, defendant had committed multiple acts and the trial court permissibly imposed consecutive sentences. Application of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-604(C) and (R) was proper where defendant committed two felonies while on felony release, which required that both resulting sentences be extended by two years.
|
|||||
| Green v. Garriott, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0424,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 12, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 43-1183 did not violate Establishment Clause because it had a valid, secular purpose and was neutral towards religion, as it provided tax credits to corporations without reference to religion and provided benefits directly to wide spectrum of individual scholarship recipients defined by financial need and prior school attendance.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Indus. Comm'n, 1 CA-IC 08-0017,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 12, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In worker's compensation claim, claimant was not entitled to award of attorney's fees because claimant was fully compensated when she received all of the workers' compensation benefits that she was awarded by the Industrial Commission of Arizona, including the 25 percent that she owed her attorney, in the form of short-term disability benefits.
|
|||||
| Poulson v. Ofack, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0499,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an appeal from an arbitration award, attorneys' fees and expert witness fees should have been awarded to appellants because appellee did not better her position at trial in excess of the required percentage, and she did not show a substantial economic hardship under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-133(I) based on the late disclosure of evidence.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Thomas, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0471,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 17, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not have jurisdiction over post-dissolution decree motion concerning parties' condo because parties intentionally omitted any reference to or allocation of the condo in their stipulated decree and under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-318(D) property transmuted by operation of law to separate property.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Agua Sierra Res., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-08-0163-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Flagstaff Affordable Hous. v. Design Alliance Inc., No. 1 CA-CV 07-0743,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 23, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A property owner's suit against a architect, alleging professional negligence and seeking purely economic damages, was improperly dismissed because the architect had an implied-in-law duty in tort to use ordinary skill, care, and diligence in rendering its professional services and the economic loss doctrine did not apply.
|
|||||
| Cain v. Horne, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-08-0189-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 25, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: School voucher programs, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 15-891 to 15-891.06 and 15-817 to 15-817.07, violated Ariz. Const. art. 9, § 10 (Aid Clause) because Aid Clause did not permit appropriations of public money to private and sectarian schools; to rule otherwise would allow appropriations that amounted to aid of the schools and render the clause a nullity.
|
|||||
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. |
