|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Arizona - April 13 - April 16, 2009
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Arraid Prop., LLC v. Arraid, Inc., No. 1 CA-CV 08-0217,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, April 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a month-to-month tenancy under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 33-342, a tenant was to be credited for certain payments and the matter was remanded in this regard; under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 12-342(A) (2003), the court awarded the tenant attorney fees and costs on appeal, subject to compliance with Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 21.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Calpine Constr. Fin. Co. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 1 CA-TX 07-0012,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, April 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a tax dispute, tax court did not err in holding that finance company was obligated to pay Arizona property tax on improvements and personal property located at an energy plant located on a reservation because, under lease agreement between finance company and tribe, finance company was owner of improvements.
|
|
| |
Dowling v. Stapley, 1 CA-CV 07-0745, 1 CA-CV 07-0891 (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, April 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A superintendent of schools could not challenge a settlement agreement reached by receivers, which were appointed under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 12-2101(F)(2), regarding a closure resolution reached by a County Board of Supervisors because the superintendent's power to determine the school district's interests had been transferred to the receivers.
|
|
| |
Farideh v. Momeni, No. 1 CA-CV 08-0371,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, April 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a father's petition to modify child support because the father failed to show a substantial and continuing change under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 25-237(A), where the father testified as to financial problems, including bankruptcy and loan default, but failed to provide documentation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Sullivan v. Treeland Ltd. Pship, 1 CA-CV 08-0237,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, April 16, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where a landowner divided one large parcel into two tracts, the express terms of the deed created an easement for irrigation and ingress and egress. In a declaratory action, extrinsic evidence showing the easement was created for irrigation purposes only contradicted the express terms of the easement; thus, it was not admissible as parol evidence.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback