 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Golonka v. GMC, 1 CA-CV 00-0467,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, April 1, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The jurors in a product liability suit brought against the manufacturer when a truck slipped into reversed, backed up, and ran over the decedent were not properly guided since the trial court erroneously instructed on the heeding presumption.
|
|||||
| State v. Grell, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-01-0275-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 1, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due process demanded that defendant's mental retardation claim receive a hearing at which the constitutional principles prohibiting the execution of mentally retarded offenders, announced by the U.S. Supreme Court, were considered.
|
|||||
| State v. Hantman, 2 CA-SA 2003-0026,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, April 1, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where State's initial dismissal of charges against defendant and two refilings of those charges occurred within one-year limitations period, refiling was within applicable statutory savings period and charges should not have been dismissed.
|
|||||
| State v. Kaiser, 1 CA-CR 02-0448,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, April 1, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of refusing to obey a peace officer. The city ordinance was not vague or overbroad, as a person of ordinary intelligence could understand what was prohibited, and it did not put First Amendment rights at risk.
|
|||||
| State v. Montoya, 1 CA-CR 01-0976,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, April 1, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for participating in a criminal street gang could not be enhanced on the basis that he had acted to promote or assist a criminal street gang; such a sentence was a violation of double jeopardy.
|
|||||
| State v. Mutschler, 1 CA-CR 02-0002, 1 CA-CR 02-0003, 1 CA-CR 02-0004, 1 CA-CR 02-0005, (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, April 1, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' convictions for violating a municipal code prohibiting persons from operating live sex businesses were upheld as, contrary to defendants' contentions, the municipal code was not unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad.
|
|||||
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. |
