 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Polanco v. Indus. Comm'n, 2 CA-IC 2006-0025,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee challenged the constitutionality of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(H) under Ariz. Const. art. XVIII, § 8, his argument was rejected because subjective pain was not an injury within the meaning of art. XVIII, § 8, and, therefore, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(H) did not unconstitutionally eliminate it as a type of compensable injury.
|
|||||
| State v. Cox, 2 CA-CR 2005-0272,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant was properly convicted of possessing a deadly weapon as a prohibited possessor under Ariz. Rev Stat. § 13-3102 as he was driving the car in which weapons were found in the trunk, which was registered to him, and he admitted that he and his fiancee were taking the guns home; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-105 required dominion or control, not both.
|
|||||
| State v. Slayton, No. 1 CA-SA 06-0208,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Considering the language, statutory history, and context of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 17-309(A)(1), (A)(17) (2006) as a whole, the court concluded that the legislature specified requisite mental states where it wanted them and clearly expressed its intention that § 17-309(A)(1), (A)(17), by contrast, were strict liability offenses.
|
|||||
| Estate of Headstream v. State ex rel. Owens, 1 CA-CV 06-0010,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court improperly ordered an estate representative to pay from the estate a claim to the State, in order to remediate contamination caused by underground storage tanks owned by the decedent, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3810 as the claim was unliquidated; while the State claimed that it could be calculated, it was based solely on estimates.
|
|||||
| State v. Cifelli, 1 CA-CR 06-0331,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who failed to notify Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles of change of address as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-448(A), received constructive notice of license suspension when Department mailed notice to last address, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-3318; defendant should have known license was suspended at time of arrest for DUI.
|
|||||
| Lopez v. Cole, 1 CA-CV 06-0477,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, April 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligence and attractive nuisance case, minor's guardian ad litem sought to recover medical expenses on behalf of minor. Minor could not recover medical expenses from grandparents because statute of limitations was not tolled pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-502. Parents did not consent; therefore, minor had no rights that could be abrogated.
|
|||||
| State v. Wright, 2 CA-CR 2006-0002,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, April 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Proposed testimony of defendant's expert encompassed opinions about his mental capacity generally and did not constitute observation evidence about defendant's relevant behavioral characteristics bearing on his state of mind at the time of the Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1814 offense; due process was not violated by the exclusion of the testimony.
|
|||||
| Nordstrom v. Leonardo, 2 CA-SA 2007-0012,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of petitioner's motion for change of judge for cause under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 10.1 was vacated as a first judge, having previously been peremptorily removed from the underlying case, was not authorized to rule on petitioner's motion for change of a second judge for cause and, instead, should have reassigned that matter to another judge.
|
|||||
| Antone v. Greater Ariz. Auto Auction, Inc., 2 CA-CV 2006-0180,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commercial car auctioneer was not a "seller" within the meaning of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-681(9) and thus was not strictly liable for injuries caused by a truck's defective condition, because its sole contact with the truck was to sell it for a flat fee. It never took title, sold the truck "as is," and had no relationship with its manufacturer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
