 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Pinal County v. Pinal County Emple. Merit Sys. Comm'n, 2 CA-CV 2004-0160,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, July 25, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dispute that followed sheriff's employee's termination after he allegedly hit a fully restrained inmate, appellate court reversed merit commission's reinstatement because sheriff department's decision to terminate was not arbitrary and capricious, which was required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 11-356(A) before department's decision could be reversed.
|
|||||
| State v. Castaneda, 1 CA-CR 02-0066,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, July 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a shooting in which a child was injured fortuitously, the increased punishment provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-604.01 (Supp. 2004) were not applicable because the child was not defendant's intended target or victim.
|
|||||
| Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 2 CA-JV 2004-0065, 2 CA-JV 2004-0066 (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, July 29, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order adjudicating the parents' daughter a dependent child was affirmed because the parents were not exercising, or currently able to exercise proper and effective parental care and control of the daughter under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 8-201(13)(a)(i).
|
|||||
| Lana A. v. Woodburn, 1 CA-SA 05-0089 (Consolidated with 1 CA-SA 05-0090),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, August 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Orders subjecting juveniles to detention pending disposition on their probation revocation hearings were impermissible under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 8-221(A) (1999) because juveniles were neither informed of their right to counsel, nor appointed counsel at their initial incorrigibility hearings; juveniles were adjudicated incorrigible without counsel.
|
|||||
| State v. Parks, 1 CA-CR 03-0573,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, August 4, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statements by defendant's son to the deputy at the crime scene were the product of a police interrogation and testimonial under Crawford; because the son died before trial and defendant thus did not receive an opportunity to cross-examine the son, the statements should not have been admitted into evidence and defendant was entitled to a new trial.
|
|||||
| Linda V. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 CA-JV 04-0180,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, August 9, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 8-533(B)(2) parents who abused or neglected their children, or who permitted another to do so, could have their parental rights to their other children terminated without evidence of abuse; court did not err in terminating mother's parental rights to her younger child after her boyfriend abused and killed her older child.
|
|||||
| State v. Carreon, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-03-0160-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 9, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not violate defendant's right to jury trial by imposing aggravated prison terms for non-capital offenses because once constitutionally permitted factors made defendant eligible for aggravated sentences under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-604, the trial judge could find additional factors in imposing a sentence up to the maximum prescribed.
|
|||||
| Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0197-PR CONSOLIDATED WITH Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0364-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 10, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of workers' compensation benefits was reversed and set aside because the Arizona Legislature could not abrogate claims for workers' compensation for injuries wholly or partially caused or contributed to by necessary employment risks or dangers solely because an employee failed to pass a drug or alcohol test, Ariz. Const. art. 18, ¿ 8.
|
|||||
| State v. Glassel, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-03-0022-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 10, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a death penalty case, defendant was not denied a sufficient opportunity to voir dire potential jurors, Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.5, where the court conducted individual voir dire of every prospective juror whose responses to a questionnaire suggested an inability to deliberate impartially or a predisposition to impose the death penalty.
|
|||||
| State v. Ruggiero, 2 CA-CR 2004-0063,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, August 10, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In reviewing manslaughter conviction, trial court did not err in denying requested justification instruction because defendant failed to show, as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-411, that deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent daughter's molestation. Fundamental error occurred at sentencing, but defendant did not show prejudice.
|
|||||
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. |
