 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| McHale v. McHale, 1 CA-CV 04-0022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though a mother and father were divorced in Arizona, when the mother filed her petition to modify child support, the parties and their minor child no longer lived there. Therefore, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 25-626 of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, an Arizona trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the original child support order.
|
|||||
| Espinoza v. Schulenburg, 1 CA-CV 04-0438,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 10, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where accident victims failed to show that off-duty fire department paramedic had an employment obligation to render aid, trial court erred in holding that fireman's rule barred paramedic's recovery for injuries she sustained when she stopped to render aid at accident scene. Also, paramedic's receipt of workers compensation did not bar recovery.
|
|||||
| In re Daniel A., 1 CA-JV 04-0181,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 15, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In juvenile proceedings, juvenile court, in its disposition committing appellant to Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC), erred in directing appellant to attend school and counseling because the latest version of Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 8-341(A)(1)(e) (Supp. 2004) deprived juvenile court of any authority to impose commitment terms.
|
|||||
| Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 1 CA-TX 04-0007,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, March 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tax court did not err by employing the arbitrary standard of review to the Arizona Department of Revenue's (ADOR) decision to adopt a 25-year table pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 42-14156(3) for depreciating personal property for the taxpayer's electric generation plant because the adoption of the table was the only issue raised in the tax court.
|
|||||
| Smethers v. Campion, 1 CA-CV 04-0117,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice suit, trial court erred in limiting cross-examination of expert when patient alleged that eye physician breached standard of care, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 12-563(1) (2003), because expert's personal practices in approaching medical problem could be relevant and expert's practices could assist jury.
|
|||||
| Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0277-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a class action suit by a driver against a seat belt maker, testers, and auto manufacturers, the driver did not have standing because she did not own a car made by the manufacturers, and she did not allege that she suffered injury.
|
|||||
| Stapert v. Ariz. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 1 CA-CV 04-0168,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following the language of Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 32-2081(J) (Supp. 2004) and the statutes to which it referred, a psychologist was prohibited from seeking judicial review of determination from Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners that he had committed unprofessional conduct because he failed to file his motion for reconsideration in a timely manner.
|
|||||
| State v. Storholm, 1 CA-CR 04-0027,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 24, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The practical difficulty that defendant identified in obtaining an independent breath sample after he was arrested for aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor failed to create a due process violation because defendant failed to show that the difficulty he identified was created by the State.
|
|||||
| Lamparella v. Lamparella (In re Estate of Lamparella), 1 CA-CV 04-0124,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 29, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In competing claim with estate to annuity proceeds after former husband's death, wife was not entitled to proceeds because Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 25-318 (Supp. 2004) did not apply after dissolution decree was entered, and under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 14-2804 (1995), husband's designation of wife as beneficiary was automatically revoked upon decree's entry.
|
|||||
| Wenc v. Dist. No. 68, 2 CA-CV 2004-0146,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, March 29, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a school election dispute, although school district's superintendant failed to appoint her employee as a deputy, as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 15-481, and employee lacked requisite authority to conduct a canvass, appellate court refused to grant voter's wish to void canvass, and election, because strict statutory compliance was not mandated.
|
|||||
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. |
