 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 CA-JV 06-0142,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support termination of mother's parental rights under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(4) where the mother was to be incarcerated for 6.5 years, only minimal contact with children could be maintained during incarceration, and mother presented no evidence as to individuals who could facilitation visitation with mother.
|
|||||
| Roubos v. Miller, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0181-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a city alleged that a club and its owners committed a civil infraction, but the club and its owners prevailed, the club and its owners were entitled to attorney fees under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348 because civil infraction proceedings were civil actions for purposes of statutory attorneys' fees provision.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Thomas v. Rayes, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0303-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because prejudice was an essential component of an ineffective assistance claim, conclusion that defendant was prejudiced by deficient performance before disposition of the charges at the trial level was purely speculative; superior court could not order reinstatement of a lapsed plea offer simply because counsel engaged in excusable neglect.
|
|||||
| In re MH 2006-000490, 1 CA-MH 06-0013,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Doctor's diagnosis of mental retardation alone was insufficient as matter of law to support order for involuntary commitment for mental health treatment under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-501(26)(a) following Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-539(B) hearing, as such, it was error for the court to have ordered patient to undergo involuntary mental health treatment.
|
|||||
| In re Natalie Z., 2 CA-JV 2006-0049,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court correctly applied Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502 by using Arizona's legal test for insanity and assigning burden of proof to defendant. Court did not violate statute when it acknowledged defendant's bipolar disorder but found behavior arose from other conditions not constituting legal insanity and it did not apply wrong standard of proof.
|
|||||
| Kim v. Mansoori, 2 CA-CV 2006-0069,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, March 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(b) could not be read to authorize the certification of a judgment expressly prohibited by Rule 54(g)(2); therefore, the trial court erred when it certified as final a judgment on an attorney fee claim pursuant to Rule 54(b) in advance of a related judgment regarding the merits of the case, and the buyers' appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
| In re Edgar V., 1 CA-JV 05-0205,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court's transfer order was affirmed even though it stated that the severity of defendant's crimes and defendant's age were the two most important competing interests in the case, because it was clear that the court considered each of the factors in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-327 (2007), and it was not error to weigh those factors differently.
|
|||||
| Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Weitz Co., No. 1 CA-CV 05-0859,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A superior court erred in granting an insured summary judgment on a counterclaim that a builder's risk insurance policy covered fire damage to dormitories under construction as the policy constituted inland marine insurance under Ariz. Admin. Code R20-6-602 and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-255 and was exempt from the standard fire policy requirements.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
