 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Callan v. Bernini, 2 CA-SA 2005-0085,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, March 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligence action against a police department and wilful misconduct action against one of its employees, police officer, who was employed by another department, could not sue for injuries sustained during inter-agency operation because, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1022(D), officer waived right to sue by accepting workers' compensation benefits.
|
|||||
| Curtis v. Richardson, 1 CA-CV 04-0827,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to change venue under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-406 (2003) in a case relating to the denial of a real estate sales license because the convenience of the witnesses was not an issue since an unsuccessful applicant was not entitled to a trial de novo.
|
|||||
| Dressler v. Morrison, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-05-0119-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in holding that a husband should have brought Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(c) motion during dissolution; he was able to bring a separate action under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-318.B to determine ownership in what he characterized as community property not disposed of in the decree because he and his former wife had become tenants in common.
|
|||||
| State v. Gastelum, 1 CA-CR 04-0661,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trial court did not comply with Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.6 when it accepted a stipulation from defendant's attorney regarding prior convictions for enhancement purposes under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(C), (D) (Supp. 2005), reversible error was committed. The trial court did not give admonitions to defendant regarding the stipulation.
|
|||||
| In re State ex rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Demetz, 1 CA-CV 05-0148,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in holding that father's child support obligation was revived after annulment of his minor daughter's marriage under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-301 because although the daughter's marriage was originally valid and she was emancipated under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-503(M)(1), the annulment returned her to unemancipated minor status.
|
|||||
| Sobol v. Alarcon, 1 CA-CV 04-0720,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was absolutely immune from liability in a defamation case based on an unauthorized practice of law complaint filed against a certified legal document preparer with the Arizona State Bar, and this immunity was not waived by submitting the complaint first to the Bar since it had joint power to discipline preparers.
|
|||||
| Sobol v. Marsh, 1 CA-CV 05-0199,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in dismissing a Legal Document Preparer's (LDP's) defamation suit against a former client because common-law immunity and public policy confirm that complainants to the Board of LDPs should be subject to absolute immunity from litigation based on those complaints.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Thomas v. Schneider, 1 CA-SA 05-0022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4062(2), attorney-client privilege applied to communications between city officials and the city attorney in a grand jury proceeding against the city officials. Communications between the city officials and attorney were privileged as officials believed they were represented in official capacity by the attorney.
|
|||||
| Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 1 CA-TX 04-0006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, March 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tax court erred in awarding summary judgment to the Arizona Department of Revenue in taxpayers' suit challenging an income tax assessment where the phrase "the taxpayer's entire income upon which tax was imposed" in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 43-1071(A)(3) (2006) referred to Arizona taxable income, not Arizona adjusted gross income plus certain exemptions.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. Green, 1 CA-CV 05-0079,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Arizona's survival statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3110, specifically precluded the survivability of invasion of privacy claims, violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which were invasion of privacy torts, could not be assigned. Consequently, the trial court correctly ruled that the TCPA claim could not be assigned.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
