 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fragoso v. Fell, 2 CA-SA 2005-0001,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, May 10, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a special action review of trial judge's imposition of "cash-only" pretrial release bond, appellate court rejected petitioner's argument that trial judge exceeded his authority because Ariz. R. Crim. P. 7.2 and 7.3 did not prohibit this type of bail, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-3967 was unambiguous, and "cash-only" bail was constitutional.
|
|||||
| Hypl v. Indus. Comm'n, 2 CA-IC 2004-0018,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, May 10, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Presumption similar to unexplained death presumption should apply to injury to living worker who due to injury is unable to testify about what happened. Thus, where truck driver was on duty, was pulled over for erratic driving, and was found to have had fractured skull and brain damage, he was entitled to presumption as he had no memory of events.
|
|||||
| State v. Roseberry, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-03-0247-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 11, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant killed his traveling companion so that he could steal the marijuana he was transporting and sell the drugs for himself, there was sufficient evidence supporting the jury's finding that defendant committed the murder for pecuniary gain, an aggravating circumstance under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-703(F)(5) (Supp. 2004).
|
|||||
| FL Receivables Trust 2002 v. Ariz. Mills, L.L.C., 1 CA-CV 04-0229,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, May 12, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lender's security interest in fixtures installed by a tenant had priority over the landlord's ownership interest, in accordance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 47-9334(F) (Supp. 2004), because the landlord both consented to the security interest and ceded to the tenant, under the terms of the lease, a right to remove the fixtures.
|
|||||
| Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder, 1 CA-CV 04-0268,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, May 12, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a political consulting firm used voter records for political-related purposes in providing professional services to candidates, the firm's sale of voter information to its clients was authorized by Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 16-168(E) (Supp. 2004); the use of the records was not for a commercial purpose as defined by Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 39-121.03(D).
|
|||||
| Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0114-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grant of summary judgment against a racecar driver in his negligence action was improper pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. XVIII, ¿ 5 because that provision applied to an express contractual assumption of risk. Thus, the defense of an assumption of risk was a question of fact to be left to a jury's determination.
|
|||||
| State v. Jackson (In re 2001 GMC Denali), 1 CA-CV 04-0452,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, May 19, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In resolving statutory forfeiture scheme's potentially conflicting sections, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿¿ 13-4301 to -4315 (2001), appellate court held that property owner had obligation to answer state's notice of forfeiture, and property owner had notice that his filing was treated as a claim, not an answer; there was no excuse for failing to answer.
|
|||||
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. |
