 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Klebba v. Carpenter, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0239-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 9, 2006, Decided , August 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case arising out of a challenge to candidate's nomination petitions, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-351(A) required elector to file her appeal within five days of superior court's decision. By failing to obtain a written and signed decision within statutory period, elector made it impossible for appellate review to be exercised in a timely fashion.
|
|||||
| Moreno v. Jones, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0237-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Elector was not circulator of petitions as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-321(D); however, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-351(F), "petition forgery" referred to conduct prescribed by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-1020, not Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2002, and elector was not guilty of petition forgery. Petition 20 complied with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-314(C).
|
|||||
| State v. Ellison, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-04-0073-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to counsel during his interrogation was not violated under U.S. Const. amend. V because defendant's statement "I think I might want an attorney" was an equivocal request for counsel and therefore the detectives were not required to stop questioning him.
|
|||||
| Gamez v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 1 CA-IC 05-0069,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, August 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ's decision finding that an employee was not permanently disabled and awarding him medical, surgical and hospital benefits and temporary compensation from the date of his injury through the date he was found to be medically stationary was upheld, where the ALJ's decision was sufficiently supported by the medical evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. McGill, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-04-0405-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and death sentence for murder, attempted murder, and endangerment of others in the building under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1201.A, as well as zone of danger and cruelty aggravators in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703.F.3 and F.6 were supported by evidence that showed he set fire to the victims knowing there were others in the building.
|
|||||
| State v. Roque, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-03-0355-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While trial court erred in ruling that Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.1(a)(3) required only an expert "written report or statement," because the defense rejected the trial court's attempt to resolve the discovery dispute the court could not assess the potential prejudice.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
