 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mejak v. Granville, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-05-0299-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3554 was interpreted to require that the person lured by a defendant be a minor or a peace officer posing as a minor given the statutory language. Since the person that lured defendant was an adult television reporter, rather than a minor or peace officer posing as a minor, the indictment was insufficient to charge him.
|
|||||
| State v. Arellano, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-05-0397-SA,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After death sentence was imposed, trial court did not err in determining, prior to an evidentiary hearing, that defendants had established a rebuttable presumption of mental retardation under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703.02 based solely on IQ scores, but trial court erred in precluding lay witness testimony about defendants' present adaptive behavior.
|
|||||
| State v. Robles, 2 CA-CR 2005-0014,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, May 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's conviction for aggravated driving under influence while his license was suspended or revoked was upheld, where relying on certified copy of his prior conviction record, as well as testimony that linked those records to him, trial court properly imposed enhanced, mitigated sentence.
|
|||||
| Abuhl v. Howell, 1 CA-CV 05-0611,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant charged with false reporting in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2907.01 did not have a right to a jury trial under Ariz. Const. art. II, § 23. The potential penalty for the crime was a six-month jail term and a fine of up to $ 2500; it was not a serious offense.
|
|||||
| Brunet v. Murphy, 1 CA-CV 05-0271,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Estate brought claim under Adult Protective Services Act (APSA), Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 46-451 to -457, against defendant physician and defendant corporation. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-244 was inapplicable because act was not retroactively applied, but pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-249, amendment to APSA did not bar claim because claim had accrued.
|
|||||
| Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller, 2 CA-SA 2006-0006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment based on Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-712(B) was denied to two corporations and several individuals in a wrongful death case arising out of the asphyxiation of an alleged shoplifter because § 12-712(B) was unconstitutional under Ariz. Const. art. XVIII, § 5 since it provided that criminal conduct was an absolute bar to recovery.
|
|||||
| State v. Grell, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-01-0275-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellant waived his right to jury trial on guilty-phase issues, based on assurances that he would retain his right to be sentenced by jury, trial court erred in determining that jury need not determine mental retardation as bar to execution; thus, case was remanded for jury sentencing.
|
|||||
| Butch Randolph & Assocs. v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co., 1 CA-CV 05-0171,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, June 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Subcontractor's claim to recover under a construction bond was not barred under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1153 because it provided, but did not install, materials for a project and thus was exempt from statutory licensing requirement. Exemption was independent and separate from a dollar-cap exemption also set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1121(A)(4).
|
|||||
| Barth v. Cochise County, 2 CA-CV 2005-0067,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, June 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed former employee's constructive discharge claim, because letters he submitted before his cause of action had accrued did not comply with statutory requirements, insufficiently apprising county of his claim, of county's potential liability, and of any meaningful opportunity for settling claim before action was filed.
|
|||||
| Kelly R. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 CA-JV 05-0003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no indication that a mother was unable to understand nature and object of termination of parental rights proceedings or assist in her defense, there were not reasonable grounds to believe she was mentally incompetent and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-535(F) (Supp. 2005) did not require sua sponte appointment of a guardian ad litem for her.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
