 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Anderson, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-02-0402-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 12, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant received death and life sentences after he was convicted of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and armed robbery; he was eligible for sentencing under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-702.01(C) (Supp. 1995). Sentence did not violate Sixth Amendment because trial jury heard evidence that showed existence of aggravators beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| State v. Cromwell, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-03-0083-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to new counsel based on mere personality and trial strategy conflicts; the especially heinous, cruel, and depraved aggravator, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-703(F)(6), was not unconstitutionally vague in light of jury instruction that narrowed and defined its terms; and judge could increase a sentence based on prior convictions.
|
|||||
| Kohler v. Kohler, 1 CA-CV 04-0377,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, August 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In distributing pension benefits pursuant to a dissolution decree, a trial court erred in not applying the Kelly exemption because both parties did not have to participate in private retirement plans for the exemption to apply.
|
|||||
| Mobile Cmty. Council for Progress, Inc. v. Brock, 1 CA-CV 04-0507,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment on the pleadings was properly awarded to county board of supervisors in plaintiffs' action alleging that board violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 11-824(C) (Supp. 2004) in voting on an amendment because two-thirds majority vote requirement of ¿ 11-824(C) was satisfied by three-to-one vote when one member of the board was disqualified from voting.
|
|||||
| Monica C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 CA-JV 04-0165,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, August 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a notice for termination of parent-child relationship erroneously failed to provide notice of the mother's right to a jury trial under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 8-223 and Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 64(C), she received due process because, inter alia, she was given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses; the rule violation was not a fundamental error.
|
|||||
| Urias v. PCS Health Sys., 1 CA-CV 03-0717,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, August 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Debt insolvent insurer owed corporation for drugs and debt corporation owed insurer for drug rebates were due to and from the same parties and in the same capacities, as corporation was not insurer's fiduciary or agent. Thus, they were "mutual" debts under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 20-638(A) (2002) and corporation was entitled to retain rebates as offset.
|
|||||
| Brebaugh v. Deane, 1 CA-CV 04-0237,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, August 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parties could not agree in marital dissolution whether husband's stock options were community property. Trial court's finding that all stock options, vested and unvested, were community property was in error because trial court needed to determine if unvested options were compensation for the past, incentives for the future, or combination of both.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith, 1 CA-SA 05-0082,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, August 25, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to a jury trial for misdemeanor DUI offenses where Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿¿ 28-1381, -1382 clearly established that a substantive right to a jury trial for the statutory offenses existed if a defendant so requested.
|
|||||
| State v. Gomez, 2 CA-CR 2004-0108,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, August 26, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's request to allow jurors to examine fingerprints with a magnifying glass. While fingerprint expert's testimony constituted the primary evidence of defendant's guilt, the jury did not have the expertise to conduct fingerprint comparisons.
|
|||||
| State v. Viramontes, 2 CA-CR 2004-0378-PR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, August 26, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of motion for postconviction relief was vacated and remanded because the applicant's notice of postconviction relief, filed just sixteen days after the resentencing, was timely, Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4.
|
|||||
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. |
