 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Grubb & Ellis Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. 407417 B.C., L.L.C., 1 CA-CV 05-0316,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indemnity provision in a contract between a landlord and a managing agent permitted the agent to shift liability for its own professional negligence in managing a rented premises; therefore, the landlord was required to indemnify the agent for costs incurred in defending against a tenant's action arising from a failure to provide adequate parking.
|
|||||
| Schuck & Sons Constr. v. Indus. Comm'n, 1 CA-IC 05-0058,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee's earnings from a side business should have been considered when determining his earning capacity in a case seeking payment for permanent partial disability because the type of work the employee was able to perform post-injury was analyzed under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(D), even if it did not exist on the open market.
|
|||||
| Short v. Petty, 1 CA-CV 05-0471,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in holding that defendants' offer of judgment in negligence suit did not comply with Ariz. R. Civ. P. 68 because it did not apportion damages between plaintiff wife's claims and plaintiff husband's claim where there was no indication that plaintiffs were unable to make a meaningful choice between offer and continuing joint prosecution.
|
|||||
| State v. Ploof, 2 CA-CR 2005-0137,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, July 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other acts evidence under Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c) because each of the victims who testified provided detailed accounts only about the other acts that defendant had committed against her and the other acts were similar in nature to the charged child molestation offenses.
|
|||||
| Stoudamire v. Simon, 2 CA-CV 2006-0018,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, August 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, as felonies; however, the State designated the offenses as misdemeanors, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-702(G)(2). Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial because defendant failed to overcome the presumption that these were petty offenses.
|
|||||
| Austin Shea (Az.) 7th St. & Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix, 1 CA-CV 05-0062,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, August 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed a decision by a trial court that held that a board of adjustment had abused its discretion in agreeing to rehear its grant of an individual's building project as there was sufficient credible evidence to support the Board's decision to rehear as the Board had failed to consider some issues.
|
|||||
| Griffis v. Pinal County, 2 CA-CV 2006-0052,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, August 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former county manager's e-mails were not public records subject to Arizona's Public Records Law, where the content of the e-mails was merely a record of the former manager's personal affairs and fell outside the scope of information necessary for the public to have knowledge of the manner in which he conducted his office and performed his duties.
|
|||||
| State v. Munninger, 1 CA-CR 03-0328,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, August 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though the trial court erred by imposing an aggravated sentence under Blakely, as no aggravating factor was found by the jury, the error was not fundamental because the court found that one aggravating factor, the victim's extraordinary harm, was indisputable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
