 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Jury Selection Process in Maricopa County, No. 1 CA-CV 08-0028,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court did not have jurisdiction where it did not have a final judgment with regard to any completed matter and issue was where judge determined that Proximity Weighed Summoning system was valid. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(b) did not confer jurisdiction. Appellate court would not accept special action jurisdiction without considering all aspects.
|
|||||
| In re MH 2008-001188, No. 1 CA-MH 08-0033,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding that a patient was unwilling or unable to accept voluntary mental health treatment under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-540(A)(2) was proper because a doctor's petition complied with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-533(A)(3) and doctors stated that the patient did not recognize that her psychiatric condition was severe and demanded a higher level of care.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Paniagua, 1 CA-CV 08-0225 EL, 1 CA-CV 08-0499 EL (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-142(A) required city to base referendum signature requirement on most recent mayoral or council election prior to the referendum petition application, because Phoenix, Ariz., City Charter, Ch. XVI, § 3 conflicted with the statute, it was invalid. Resident was properly awarded attorney's fees under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2030.
|
|||||
| Maximov v. Maximov, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0914,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 26, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-315, a family court possessed authority to set the effective date of a modification to a husband's temporary family support to a date prior to the date upon which the husband filed his petition for modification of support and had authority to modify a temporary support order nunc pro tunc.
|
|||||
| Brethauer v. GMC, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0530,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 31, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a products liability case, order in limine that denied an automobile manufacturer's motion to preclude lay witnesses from testifying that its seatbelt was defective did not preclude the automobile manufacturer from eliciting testimony from emergency medical technicians that the driver had not been wearing his seatbelt at the time of an accident.
|
|||||
| Devries v. State, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0399,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 31, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit stemming from a fatal one-vehicle accident involving an intoxicated driver, the trial court did not err in permitting the State to assert qualified immunity under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-802.02(A)(7) because the statute was a constitutional exercise of legislative authority and a grant of immunity under Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, § 18.
|
|||||
| In re MH 2008-000097, No. 1 CA-MH 08-0011,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 31, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order for a patient to undergo involuntary mental health treatment was proper because Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-501(12)(a) did not require that separate formal interviews of a proposed patient must be conducted by the two examining physicians and evidence supported the finding that the doctors conducted independent evaluations of her.
|
|||||
| Staples v. Concord Equities, L.L.C., 1 CA-TX 08-0003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, March 31, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Roll-over provision, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16002(B), applied because the taxpayer pursued an appeal to the State Equalization Board and tax court under statutes in Articles 2 and 4 of chapter 16; appeal initiated under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16051(A) and culminating in tax court review under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16168(A) fell within § 42-16002(B).
|
|||||
| State v. Lewandowski, 2 CA-CR 2008-0057,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, March 31, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The restitution order was vacated where, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-805, a criminal restitution order may not be entered prior to the expiration of defendant's prison term or sentence of probation and the early entry of the order constituted an illegal sentence by obligating defendant to pay more than the statute required.
|
|||||
| Bailey-Null v. ValueOptions, No. 1 CA-CV 08-0156,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, April 7, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuit of administrative remedies before the Arizona Department of Health Services was not a prerequisite to filing suit on claims of medical malpractice and assault and battery and claims under the Arizona Adult Protective Services Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 46-451 et seq., or the Arizonans with Disabilities Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1492 et seq.
|
|||||
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. |
