 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carlisle v. Petrosky, 1 CA-CV 04-0585,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In suit between two drivers, motion to dismiss appeal of arbitration award, pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 76, was properly granted because superior court had inherent authority to do so; other driver did not file her own notice of appeal, and she did not show that she relied on other party's last day notice of appeal to her detriment.
|
|||||
| Progressive Classic Ins. Co. v. Blaud, 1 CA-CV 04-0589,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that insured motorcyclist satisfied physical contact requirements of Uninsured Motorist Act (UMA), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-259.01(M), as a matter of law because he had to show contact with an unidentifed vehicle or corroborate his version of tire tread accident; and satisfying UMA did not entitle him to UM coverage.
|
|||||
| Henry v. Flagstaff Med. Ctr., 1 CA-CV 05-0123,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, April 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice case, a patient failed to prove an apparent agency relationship between a surgeon and a hospital because her testimony established that her belief that the surgeon was a hospital employee was based on her personal opinions and thoughts; she did not rely on the hospital for this information.
|
|||||
| State v. King, 1 CA-CR 04-0269,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, April 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by admitting puppies' owners' statements to a police officer at the crime scene in violation of the Sixth Amendment because they were testimonial in nature and in purpose, as a reasonable person in the owner's position would expect the government to use her statements in the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrator.
|
|||||
| Waldren v. Waldren, 1 CA-CV 04-0466,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, April 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Spousal maintenance modification was not available under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-327(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(C), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-317(G); however, trial court could have jurisdiction and exercise equitable discretion because, if husband showed extraordinary circumstances, relief could be available under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(5).
|
|||||
| Hancock v. Bisnar, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-05-0381-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment that the electees could not serve as directors of the Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District, Arizona, was affirmed because the electees were not qualified electors under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 48-2917, when they admittedly did not own agricultural land in the district.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-05-0204-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was clear that a buyer paid separate consideration for a third party's service contract on the used car that she purchased, the court of appeals erred in concluding that the contract amounted to a written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 2301-2312, and its opinion was thus vacated.
|
|||||
| State v. Newell, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-04-0074-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to detectives was properly denied because he did not make any unequivocal requests for counsel, as shown by a videotape of the interrogation, and because defendant's statements were voluntary under the Fifth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Guerra v. Bejarano, 1 CA-CV 05-0407,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, April 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied the father's petition to retroactively modify his child support obligation to the date of his oldest's son's emancipation because Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-327(A) and 25-503(E) prohibited retroactive modification of a support order to a date earlier than the date on which the written request for modification was filed.
|
|||||
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. |
