 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burke v. Voicestream Wireless Corp. II, 1 CA-CV 02-0031,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 30, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although building was a worship center, and building owner and telephone company agreed to tower's construction atop building, subdivision's restrictive covenants still applied. Subdivision's property owners were entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
| O'Connor v. Hyatt, 1 CA-SA 04-0054,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 30, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A person placed on probation in 2001 for a Proposition 200 drug-related offense who violated her probation had to be reinstated on probation with additional conditions of probation, and jail time was not authorized.
|
|||||
| O'Connor v. Hyatt, 1 CA-SA 04-0054,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 30, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statute, as it provided at the time defendant possessed dangerous drugs and at the time she was convicted of that offense, did not provide for jail time as a condition of probation. Defendant was ordered released.
|
|||||
| Pierce v. Molet (In re Gordon), 1 CA-CV 02-0353,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 30, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Personal representative sought reimbursement of attorney fees incurred during an arbitration proceeding. Beneficiaries argued that fees were not for estate's benefit. Estate's benefit was a factor in determining good faith conduct.
|
|||||
| Crackel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2 CA-CV 2002-0123,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, March 31, 2004, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of the insurer's motion for judgment as a matter of law in the driver and passenger's action for abuse of process was proper, where it was possible that the insurer's actions had been consistent with a deceptive motive.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. Gamble, 2 CA-CV 2003-0131,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, March 31, 2004, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grant of summary judgment in favor of the students in the teacher's personal injury action was improper, where the appellate court could not state as a matter of law that the students were the teacher's "co-employees" for recovery purposes.
|
|||||
| Barrett v. Harris, 1 CA-CV 03-0412,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, April 1, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As parents did not show that fatal injury that occurred while nurse, on defendant's orders, administered blow-by oxygen to newborn stemmed from a recognizable risk of this procedure, order to use blow-by oxygen was not proximate cause of injury.
|
|||||
| In re Clark, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-03-0113-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 1, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney disciplinary commission erred when it accepted the hearing officer's finding of fact, yet rejected the finding that an attorney acted negligently, not intentionally or knowingly, in his actions toward his former client.
|
|||||
| State v. Rivera, 1 CA-CR 02-0211,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, April 1, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by allowing testimony of accomplices who had entered into plea agreements containing consistency provisions, as they had not been told that the consistency provisions were unenforceable, and those provisions tainted their testimony.
|
|||||
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. |
