 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fillmore v. Maricopa Water Processing Sys., 1 CA-CV 04-0523,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, July 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing salesman's complaint under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because it described colorable theories of injurious falsehood, tortious business interference and defamation against the competitor for knowingly making false statements about the salesman's employer's product and practices to a specific potential customer.
|
|||||
| Fillmore v. Maricopa Water Processing Sys., 1 CA-CV 04-0523,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, July 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing the salesman's complaint against competitor because the salesman sufficiently alleged colorable theories of injurious falsehood, tortious business interference, and defamation and was seeking recovery for his own identifiable losses due to competitor's employee's false statements disparaging the salesman's products.
|
|||||
| State v. Febles, 1 CA-CR 03-0827 PRPC,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, July 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was properly denied post-conviction relief because Blakely rule did not apply retroactively as it was a new rule of criminal procedure and did not fall under exceptions to rule of non-retroactivity; thus, it applied only to cases not yet final on direct review when rule was decided, even if petitioner was sentenced before the decision.
|
|||||
| State v. Fell, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0344-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant was convicted of murder, and the State did not seek the death penalty, imposition of natural life sentence by judge, not a jury, would not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights because a natural life sentence was not an aggravated sentence. Also, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703.01(Q) (Supp. 2004) could not be applied retroactively.
|
|||||
| State v. Henderson, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-04-0442-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant was sentenced to aggravated sentence, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-702.01, his constitutional rights were violated because defendant was sentenced without a jury, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, and the sentencing judge used a preponderance standard, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
|
|||||
| State v. Lamar, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-01-0270-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant had to be resentenced for his first degree murder conviction because the trial court violated Ring v. Arizona by not having a jury determine facts on which the legislature conditioned an increase in defendant's maximum punishment.
|
|||||
| State v. Martinez, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-04-0435-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Blakely and Sixth Amendment were not violated where aggravated sentences for burglary and theft were imposed after a jury implicitly found an aggravating factor after convicting defendant of first degree murder, thus exposing him to an aggravated sentence under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-702.A and allowing court to consider other aggravating factors.
|
|||||
| State v. Prasertphong, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-01-0100-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving felony murder and armed robbery, defendant waived the right to advance a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause argument to the State's introduction of the rest of a statement made by an accomplice under Ariz. R. Evid. 106 because defendant was the one who wanted to introduce the exculpatory portions of the statement.
|
|||||
| Ariz. State Democratic Party v. State, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0346-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 12, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a political party accepted contributions from corporations and labor organizations to pay general operating expenses, party did not violate Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-919 (Supp. 2004) because nothing in the statute prohibited a political party from accepting contributions and using them to pay overhead expenses.
|
|||||
| Canion v. Cole, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0243-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 21, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the inmate's counsel filed a post-conviction relief notice, because no actual petition for post-conviction relief had been filed, the inmate neither established good cause for discovery nor made a colorable claim that he was entitled to post-conviction relief under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32; thus, appellate court improperly granted him relief.
|
|||||
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. |
