 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Miguel R., 1 CA-JV 02-0016, 1 CA-JV 02-0072, (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, February 25, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where juveniles were on standard probation and both parents and the juveniles themselves indicated willingness to participate in Drug Court program, Drug Court participation as a special term of probation was rationally related to rehabilitation.
|
|||||
| McMurren v. Jmc Builders, 2 CA-CV 2002-0022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, February 25, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowner qualified as person injured, who was eligible to make claim against the Arizona Residential Contractors' Recovery Fund, where he occupied or intended to occupy home as residence when contract with contractor was entered into.
|
|||||
| Petersen v. City of Mesa, 1 CA-CV 02-0016,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, February 25, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's drug and alcohol testing policy was reasonable under state constitution and Fourth Amendment; firefighters had reduced expectations of privacy against city's compelling need to discover specific conditions representing grave risks to safety.
|
|||||
| Stanley v. McCarver, 1 CA-CV 02-0328,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, February 25, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employer referred employee for a pre-employment chest x-ray, the radiologist who read the x-rays had a duty to have exercised reasonable care in conducting the exam and that duty included communicating the results directly to the employee.
|
|||||
| State v. Bronson, 1 CA-CR 02-0186,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, February 25, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of a transcript denied burglary defendant's right to confrontation; the transcript did not fall into a firmly rooted hearsay exception, and insufficient indicia of reliability existed to render its admission into evidence constitutional.
|
|||||
| State v. Towery, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-02-0031-PC CONSOLIDATED WITH Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-02-0022-PC CONSOLIDATED WITH Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-02-0038-PC CONSOLIDATED WITH Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-02-0146-PC,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 26, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: New rule requiring that a jury must decide whether aggravating circumstances exist in capital cases did not apply retroactively to petitioners' cases, which were final; thus, the trial courts properly denied postconviction relief for petitioners.
|
|||||
| Montero v. Foreman, 1 CA-SA 02-0337,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, February 27, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The State did not have to give defendant notice that disorderly conduct was a violent crime prior to accepting his plea to that charge. The possibility of probation disqualification was not a factor in that case nor a consequence of the plea.
|
|||||
| State v. Sucharew, 1 CA-CR 02-0190 RT,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, February 27, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the parents were present during the conversations between their minor son and his attorney, the attorney-client privilege was not waived. The parents hired and paid for their son's attorney and were taking an advisory role in his case.
|
|||||
| Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-02-0091-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State constitution and statute did not prohibit the irrigation district from selling electricity to customers and was not limited to the sale of electricity within the district's boundaries. The right was limited to the district's primary purpose.
|
|||||
| Am. Cas. Co. of Reading v. D.L. Withers Constr., L.C., 1 CA-CV 02-0199,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 6, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the insurer was affirmed because the general contractor was not a claimant under the terms of the labor and material payment bond.
|
|||||
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. |
