|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Arizona - May 24 - May 30, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Heath v. Kiger, 1 CA-SA 06-0197,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, May 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because petitioner was released on her own recognizance at the time of her second arrest, she was not "admitted to bail" and was not required to be detained pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 2, ??22.A.2; for purposes of Ariz. Const. art. 2, ??22.A.2, "admitted to bail" did not include own recognizance release.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
State v. Moss, 1 CA-CR 05-0306,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because criminalists, who actually performed tests on defendant's blood sample, were absent from the trial, they would not be subject to cross-examination. Thus, trial court did not err in finding that Confrontation Clause precluded testimony of State's expert regarding blood test results conducted by criminalists and his opinions based thereon.
|
|
| |
Sunland Beef Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 1 CA-IC 06-0046,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: An employee's fall in his employer's restroom was an unexplained fall when a doctor testified that the cause of the fall was unknown, and under the positional-risk doctrine, the employee's fall presumably arose out of his employment, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 23-1021(A) (Supp. 2006), and the employee was entitled to workers' compensation benefits.
|
|
| |
In re Estate of Goldman, 2 CA-CV 2006-0138,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, May 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A trial court properly granted a devisee summary judgment on a claim seeking payment of a charitable devise where the date of distribution values, not the date of death values, were to be considered for abatement purposes and at the time of the distribution, the estate value was sufficient to cover the charitable devises in the testator's will.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback