 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Douglass v. Gendron, 1 CA-CV 00-0409,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 29, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment dismissing a citation against a landowner for violating a city ordinance regarding the height of grass and weeds on property was reversed on review.
|
|||||
| State v. Skiba, 1 CA-CR 00-0457,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 29, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant who committed a DUI offense during a period of driving restriction because of a prior DUI offense was properly convicted for aggravated DUI.
|
|||||
| Town of Tortolita v. Napolitano, 1 CA-CV 00-0437,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, March 29, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to municipalities, therefore appellant town had no due process rights to assert in its motion to modify a preliminary injunction preventing it from incurring attorneys' fees.
|
|||||
| Gonzalez v. Fields, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-00-0390-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kimble v. City of Page, 1 CA-CV 00-0389,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, April 3, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City manager had no right to appeal hearing officer's decision because city council improperly amended his duties through rules rather than through city code amendment. Hearing officer's decision was not binding on city manager, but merely advisory.
|
|||||
| Republic Nat'l Bank v. Pima County, 2 CA-CV 00-0183,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, April 3, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statutory provision and common law both recognized that appellees had a duty to real property lienholder to avoid physically abusing or destroying relevant real property, committing waste, and impairing lienholder's security.
|
|||||
| State v. Farley, 1 CA-CR 99-0870,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, April 3, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arizona's affirmative defense statute did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Arizona Constitution because, as justification was an affirmative defense, the legislature was entitled to allocate to defendant the burden of proving it.
|
|||||
| State v. Newton, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-00-0441-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 3, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Legislative intent did not create an exception to the criminal law principle that required the appellant to be sentenced under the version of the sentencing statute laws in effect at the time appellant created his offense.
|
|||||
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. |
