 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Astorga v. Wing, 1 CA-SA 05-0153,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, August 30, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying tribal members' request to stay their action pending determination of jurisdiction in a tribal court proceeding because the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction alone by tribal court was insufficient to divest trial court of all discretion in determining whether to grant stay in the parallel proceedings before it.
|
|||||
| Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Ariz. Dep't of Water Res., 1 CA-CV 04-0491,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, August 30, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arizona Department of Water Resources had the authority under Arizona law to issue permits for instream water rights because there was not a physical diversion requirement for valid appropriation of instream or in situ water rights under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-152.
|
|||||
| Snyder v. Donato, 1 CA-SA 05-0112,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 30, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence did not support trial court's finding that this was a complex criminal case due to the involvement of DNA case. This was a showing of case-specific evidentiary difficulty, not complexity in the type of evidence. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 8.2(a)(3) was inapplicable to the facts found by the superior court.
|
|||||
| State v. Molina, 2 CA-CR 2004-0222,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, August 30, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In aggravated assault trial, trial court properly denied defendant's Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20 motion because evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that defendant used alcohol, a dangerous instrument under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1204, to assault victim by lighting him on fire; Sixth Amendment error in sentencing was not prejudicial.
|
|||||
| Romero v. Southwest Ambulance & Rural/Metro Corp., 2 CA-CV 2004-0053,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, August 31, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wrongful death action, decedent's mother argued that Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-711 unconstitutionally violated Ariz. Const. art. XVIII, § 6; however, appellate court found there was no constitutional violation because the statute did not abrogate mother's right of action to recover damages.
|
|||||
| Wertheim v. Pima County, 2 CA-CV 2004-0109,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, August 31, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City and county owed no duty to decedent, who was shot and killed by police officer; officer's employment relationship with defendants did not impose a duty on either defendant to control officer's actions. Gun used by officer to kill decedent was officer's property, and officer was not on defendants' premises when he shot decedent.
|
|||||
| Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Ariz. Dep't of Water Res., 1 CA-CV 04-0491,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, September 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Arizona Department of Water Resources had the authority to issue a permit for instream water rights because there was no physical diversion requirement for a valid appropriation of such rights under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-152 (2003).
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Thomas v. Blakey, 1 CA-SA 05-0124,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, September 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that defendant could not be tried in absentia according to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 9.1, because defendant's voluntary departure to Mexico did not prevent him from keeping in touch with his attorney or attempting to return for trial.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Thomas v. Foreman, No. 1 CA-SA 05-0001,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, September 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4426.01 (Supp. 2004) was facially constitutional, because U.S. Const. amend. VIII did not bar statements relevant to the harm caused by defendant's criminal acts, U.S. Const. amend. VI did not invalidate the statute, and U.S. Const. amend. XIV provided a mechanism for relief if the evidence was so unduly prejudicial.
|
|||||
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. |
