 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Jessi W., No. 1 CA-JV 05-0169,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly adjudicated delinquent for resisting arrest at his school where, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2508(A), he did not maintain that police officer's identity as an officer was unknown to him, and by the time that defendant tried to hit the officer, the officer was trying to effect and defendant was trying to resist arrest.
|
|||||
| Marina P. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., No. 1 CA-JV 05-0198,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The juvenile court's termination order pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(8)(a) was reversed because when the mother returned to the United States after being deported, the mother contacted the Child Protective Services caseworker to set a regular weekly visitation schedule and the mother consistently kept that visitation schedule.
|
|||||
| State v. Levens, 1 CA-CR 05-0969,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court erred in granting suppression motion. Fact that defendant was required, under conditions of his probation, to submit to a polygraph exam did not mean that his responses were involuntary or compelled. He waived his U.S. Const. amend. V rights by failing to assert them when examiner asked question concerning his possession of firearms.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Baugh, 2 CA-CV 2006-0128,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-807 did not preclude the perpetrator from raising affirmative defense of justification in subsequent civil suit, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-413, as it did not conflict with essential allegations of criminal conviction for aggravated assault; the perpetrator could introduce evidence of contributory negligence or comparative fault.
|
|||||
| In re Van Dox, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-06-0121-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney engaged in unauthorized practice of law, in violation of Ariz. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 and Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 31 and 53(f), but her conduct was negligent, not knowing, and caused little or no injury. Attorney's failure to respond to Arizona Bar constituted a violation and persuaded the supreme court that an informal reprimand was appropriate.
|
|||||
| Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0275-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee's claim letter did not comply with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01.A where the repeated use of qualifying language with respect to economic damages, potential future pay raises, and emotional distress damages made it impossible to ascertain the precise amount for which the district could have settled her wrongful termination claim.
|
|||||
| Twin Peaks Constr., Inc. v. Weatherguard Metal Constr., Inc., 2 CA-CV 2006-0095,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contractor's assertion that it had absolute defense under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1153 against subcontractor was without merit where the subcontractor was not a party to the administrative proceeding; § 32-1153 provided no defense in the administrative proceedings against the contractor because the subcontractor did not bring action in state court.
|
|||||
| Weatherguard Roofing Co. v. D. R. Ward Constr. Co., 1 CA-CV 05-0247,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, February 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Subcontract expressly incorporated "general conditions," which incorporated arbitration provision of prime contract, so subcontractor was required to arbitrate general contractor's indemnity claim. Even if general contractor failed to attach copy of conditions to subcontract, subcontractor was on notice of their incorporation into subcontract.
|
|||||
| In re James P., 1 CA-JV 06-0074,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile court erred in concluding that assault was a lesser-included offense of child molestation where assault under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1203.A.1 contained an element, causing physical injury, which child molestation under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1410.A did not contain. The evidence was sufficient to convict the juvenile of child molestation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
