 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Parra v. Indus. Comm'n , 2 CA-IC 2005-0005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An award of workers' compensation benefits to an employee was set aside where an ALJ incorrectly applied the apportionment provision of Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 23-1044 to an award governed by Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 23-1045; the ALJ's choice to simply defer to the Arizona Industrial Commission's calculations did not comply with Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 23-1061(J).
|
|||||
| Roubos v. Miller, 2 CA-SA 2005-0080,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, April 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A nightclub and its owners were entitled to recover attorney fees for successfully defending an alleged ordinance violation because the civil enforcement of an ordinance was a "civil action" under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 12-348(A)(1), and not a criminal proceeding under ¿ 12-348(H).
|
|||||
| Haines v. Goldfield Prop. Owners Ass'n, 1 CA-CV 04-0652,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, May 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners, association, company, and partnership disagreed about disbursement of assessed funds. Superior court erred in granting summary judgment because of factual issue existed as to whether a trust was created. If trust had not been created, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿¿ 10-3140(22), -11301, -11302 prohibited funds' disbursement.
|
|||||
| In re Everett, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-05-0166-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 2, 2006, Decided , May 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re General Adjudication of All Rights to use Water in the Gila River system, Arizona Supreme Court No. WC-02-0003-IR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 3, 2006, Decided , May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In water-rights dispute, tribe's contention that the doctrine of comity was inapplicable because equity court lacked the ability to consider the tribe's attacks on a 1935 decree was not well-founded. Court was not deprived of jurisdiction by McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C.S. ¿ 666 (1952).
|
|||||
| Salib v. City of Mesa, 1 CA-CV 04-0436,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a city was affirmed because the city's sign code did not violate a business owner's rights under the first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or the violate his rights under the Arizona Constitution.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0021-PR/A,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A candidate, who was administratively ordered removed from legislative office for violation of campaign spending limitations under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 16-942, was without judicial recourse where he failed to file a judicial appeal within 14 days of the date of the administrative order assessing the penalty, and his claim was time-barred.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Connolly, 1 CA-CV 05-0400,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, May 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decedent's sister's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from the decedent's death in a car accident that the sister witnesses was not subject to the same "each person" policy limits as her parents' wrongful death claim, and therefore she was entitled to recover from the insurer on her claim.
|
|||||
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. |
