 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Day v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 1 CA-CV 04-0315,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 31, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly upheld an order denying an incapacitated claimant's challenge to an increase of his monthly share of guardian and conservator costs because while the Arizona Department of Veterans' Services, as guardian and conservator, might perform a valuable service, it did not perform a medical service recognized by Ariz. Admin. Code R9-22-101.
|
|||||
| Jung v. Jung (In re Jung), 1 CA-CV 04-0272,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 31, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in ordering codicil stricken on the ground that testator's son signed it after testator's death because although the court recognized the requirement in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-2502 (1995) that a witness sign the will within a reasonable time, it appeared to have focused on whether the son signed the codicil prior to the testator's death.
|
|||||
| State v. Cleere, 2 CA-CR 2003-0165-PR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, April 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if defendant's acknowledgment of the victim's serious physical injury did not constitute a valid "admission" for Blakely purposes, a court's finding of that fact as an aggravating factor, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-702, was harmless because defendant inflicted very serious physical injury to the victim by slashing her throat with a box cutter.
|
|||||
| State v. Poshka, 2 CA-CR 2003-0123,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, April 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1381 was not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as two-hour provision satisfied due process by advising criminal penalties existed for those who risked driving after consuming alcohol. Defendant had no standing to bring overbreadth claim. Elimination of affirmative defense provision did not render statute unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| State v. Aleman, 2 CA-CR 2003-0075,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, April 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An officer had probable cause to believe that defendant had been driving under the influence where, in addition to observing open beer containers in and around defendant's car, emergency personnel who attended to him at the scene told police they had detected the odor of intoxicants on his breath, and the accident occurred in broad daylight.
|
|||||
| Qwest Dex, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 1 CA-TX 03-0017,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, April 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tax refund dispute, taxpayer was entitled to refund it sought from Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) because Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-5155 did not apply; taxpayer purchased a service from out-of-state printers, and not tangible personal property. Taxpayer, which published directories, in turn, furnished a service to its subscribers.
|
|||||
| State v. Rivera, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-04-0170-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Accomplice testimony was proper where it was not given pursuant to a consistency agreement because the agreements neither compelled the witnesses to disregard their oaths of truthfulness nor bound them to a particular script or result, such as the conviction of defendant.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc., 1 CA-CV 02-0656,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, April 7, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a warranty dispute, summary judgment for an auto dealership was inappropriate because when buyer entered into a service contract with an auto manufacturer, the dealership was also a party to the contract, and the dealership, pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, could not limit the terms of the implied warrant of merchantability.
|
|||||
| Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C., 1 CA-CV 03-0650,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, April 19, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The voluntary withdrawal provision of a shareholder agreement constituted an unlawful restriction upon a former partner's right to practice law, but the former partner had no right to compensation for his share in his former law firm under the Arizona Professional Corporation Act.
|
|||||
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. |
