 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| James v. State, 2 CA-CV 2006-0124,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's appeal from the dismissal of his wrongful death action against the State was dismissed because the father's notice of appeal from the trial court's judgment was untimely filed, thereby depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction, and the father's filing of an objection to the trial court's judgment did not extend his time to appeal.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. Robert, 1 CA-CV 06-0530,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Default judgment entered in an action seeking to foreclose the right to redeem under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18201(A) should have been set aside because an heir was not made a party thereto; the heir had a right to redeem under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18151 because the property passed to him by operation of law under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-3101(A).
|
|||||
| State v. Joyner, 2 CA-CR 2006-0032,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's prior convictions for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery were not violent crimes under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(B). Thus, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(A), he should have been placed on probation for his possession convictions. Therefore, his possession sentences were vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing.
|
|||||
| State v. Rachel Marie Vallejo, 2 CA-CR 2006-0336-PR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an aggravated assault with a dangerous instrument case, denial of the inmate's petition for postconviction relief under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32 was proper as the inmate was not denied effective assistance of counsel for not questioning the inmate's reasons for questioning the inmate's rejection of the State's plea offers.
|
|||||
| State v. Smith, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-04-0208-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703.04(B), mitigation presented was not sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency given nature of the crimes and aggravating factors, including that murders were cruel under former Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-454(E)(6) because victims died of asphyxiation after having their noses and mouths filled with dirt and taped shut.
|
|||||
| Ariz. Dep't of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., 1 CA-TX 06-0006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation's officers and directors were not personally liable for the corporation's unpaid transaction privilege taxes, because there was no basis to hold that the term "person" as used in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-5028 encompassed a corporate officer or director since, inter alia, such office holders were not listed in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-5001(8).
|
|||||
| Dawson v. Withycombe, 1 CA-CV 06-0043,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding in favor of the lender in his action for damages resulting from fraud and constructive fraud was improper because the lender pointed to no evidence that the board members instructed the CEO and a third board member to act as their personal agents or that the board members acquiesced personal liability on an agency theory.
|
|||||
| Aranda v. Cardenas, 2 CA-CV 2006-0178,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether father was actually unborn child's father, trial court erred by granting doctors and hospital summary judgment in wrongful death action under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-612(A). Father stated that he was dating mother, that they had lived together, and that he took her to hospital.
|
|||||
| Estate of Garner v. Schindler (In re Estate of de Escandon), 1 CA-CV 06-0258,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite not having approval from a county board of supervisors under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-141, a judge pro tempore had de facto authority until the error was rectified; therefore, a personal representative waived any defect in appointment by not objecting at the trial of a probate matter.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, No. 1 CA-CR 06-0415,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of first-degree burglary, aggravated assault, and threatening or intimidating. Defendant was not entitled to a 12-person jury, pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-102(A) because defendant was not exposed to a sentence in excess of 30 years' imprisonment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
