 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Hyrum H., 1 CA-JV 05-0101, 1 CA-JV 05-0102 (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court did not err in dismissing delinquency petition against ten-year-old twin brothers based on its finding that they were incompetent as defined in the juvenile competency statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-291(2), because § 8-291(2) did not require a finding that an incompetent juvenile had an underlying mental disease, defect or disability.
|
|||||
| Valder Law Offices v. Keenan Law Firm, 1 CA-CV 05-0217, 1 CA-CV 05-0358 (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In one law firm's action against another law firm to recover attorneys' fees for work expended on behalf of a decedent's mother in a wrongful death action, the trial court correctly determined that the common fund doctrine did not apply because a specified portion of the mother's award could not be "traced accurately" to the mother's law firm.
|
|||||
| State v. Freitag, 1 CA-CR 04-0770,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for solicitation of prostitution was properly upheld because city's prostitution ordinance was constitutional in that defendant did not have any fundamental liberty in engaging in commercial sexual activity, but city's collection of a fee for a criminal appeal violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-373 and Ariz. Const. art. II, § 24.
|
|||||
| Cornman Tweedy 560, LLC v. City of Casa Grande, 2 CA-CV 2005-0159,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Developer prevailed in an actions challenging two cities' proposed annexation of certain territory where one city could not rely on state approval given years earlier in a prior annexation petition and where the second city's annexation plan was not filed in accordance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-471(A)(6) because it did not track statutory language.
|
|||||
| Espinoza v. Schulenburg, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-05-0158-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Off-duty firefighter who sustained personal injuries during a volunteer rescue was paid workers' compensation benefits under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1021.01(A). Because she was off-duty, the firefighter's rule did not bar her personal injury claim against the tortfeasors.
|
|||||
| LaWall v. Pima County Merit Sys. Comm'n, 2 CA-CV 2005-0140,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Written order requirement under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-356 did not limit a county merit system commission's review to terminations by written orders because it was merely a procedure that employers should have followed; therefore, such a commission was permitted to review a claim of coerced resignation.
|
|||||
| Parrot v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-05-0104-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Customer was not a consumer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 2301-2312, as dealer-lessor purchased vehicle for purposes of resale and customer could not maintain action against corporation. Customer did not have claim under Arizona Motor Vehicle Warranties Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-1261 -1267 as customer did not have title.
|
|||||
| State v. Miller, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-05-0250-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 15, 2006, Decided , March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On remand, a trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to extend the time for filing a petition for review in the court of appeals of the denial of his motion for postconviction relief because the motion to extend the time for filing a petition for review had been filed within the time limits of Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c).
|
|||||
| In re Dean, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-05-0135-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended six months where she engaged in affair with judge and misrepresented facts to Arizona State Bar; State Bar could not pursue lawyer discipline against judge under Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 46(c) as, under Ariz. Comm'n. Jud. Conduct R. 29(h), there was final determination in judicial discipline imposing sanction by taxation of costs.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-05-0263-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to a jury trial on alleged aggravating factors under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-702, 13-702.01 pursuant to the Apprendi/Blakely rule because he did not waive his right through his guilty plea agreement or by pleading guilty to an offense of which they were elements.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
