 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| David G. v. Pollard, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-03-0169-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 11, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city court judge, sitting as a juvenile hearing officer, erred in applying the rules of criminal procedure to a juvenile's adjudication on misdemeanor traffic charges. The allegations were not criminal offenses, and a jury trial was inappropriate.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. Schneider, 1 CA-SA 03-0268,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 18, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Special action petitioner was previously convicted of a misdemeanor. Sentencing court unlawfully imposed lifetime probation. Trial judge wrongfully denied petitioner's request to terminate probation early.
|
|||||
| State v. Madrid, 1 CA-CR 02-0384,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 18, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly required defendant to pay reasonable travel, lodging, meal, and incidental expenses incurred by victim's children in attending a murder trial. The expenses were economic losses for which the family was entitled to restitution.
|
|||||
| State v. Lucero, 1 CA-CR 02-0739,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 23, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Frye hearing regarding admissibility of marijuana test was not required as defendant failed to show either that test was a novel scientific method or was method that had fallen into disrepute. Also, State's expert's opinion testimony was admissible.
|
|||||
| State v. Windus, 1 CA-CR 03-0138,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 23, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though officers entry into defendant's yard was illegal, they did not exploit their unlawful entry to provoke defendant's new, distinct criminal conduct of aggravated assault and resisting arrest; thus, his motion to dismiss was properly denied.
|
|||||
| City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Empl. Rels. Bd., 1 CA-CV 02-0810,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 25, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On appeal of dismissal of employees' unfair labor practices charge, judgment was reversed; the employment relations board could hear an unfair labor practice charge even when the discipline case was appealed to the civil service board.
|
|||||
| Martineau v. Maricopa County, 1 CA-CV 03-0056,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, March 25, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly addressed the merits of a summary judgment motion in a challenge to the validity of a policy promulgated by County. The public entity and County notice of claim requirements did not apply to the declaratory judgment action.
|
|||||
| In re Nelson, Arizona Supreme Court No. JC-03-0002,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commission on judicial conduct improperly recommended assessment of investigative costs, certain witness fees, and travel and lodging costs of hearing panel members against judge, but costs for a deposition and hearing transcript were appropriate.
|
|||||
| State v. Smyers, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-03-0284-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 26, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were affirmed when the appellate court erred by disregarding Arizona law requiring defendant to testify at trial before he could challenge an adverse pretrial ruling conditionally admitting prior convictions for impeachment.
|
|||||
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. |
