 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kohl v. City of Phoenix, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0358-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where parents alleged that the absence of a traffic light at an intersection caused their son's death, a city was absolutely immune under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01 because the decision to use a computer program to prioritize intersections for signalization and the discretionary selection of the specific criteria were fundamental policymaking.
|
|||||
| Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis, 1 CA-SA 07-0099,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Notice of claim filed with a school district by a minor who was an alleged victim of a sexual assault was a public record subject to disclosure under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 39-121 to 39-121.03 because it was a matter of public concern, and confidentiality interests did not outweigh the presumption favoring disclosure.
|
|||||
| State v. Salazar, 1 CA-CR 06-0063,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: During defendant's trial for engaging in various sexual acts with his minor stepdaughter, admission of victim's recorded statements did not violate defendant's right to confront witnesses against him under Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24 because, although the victim was a reluctant witness, defendant was not precluded or limited in his cross-examination.
|
|||||
| Vanessa H. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 CA-JV 06-0086,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, June 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly terminated a mother's right to her child under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(3) when evidence showed that the mother's cognitive limitations were too severe for the child to remain with the mother and that additional services would not likely improve the mother's ability to function as a minimally adequate parent.
|
|||||
| Fushek v. State, 1 CA-CV 06-0598,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neither assault nor contributing to the delinquency of a minor qualified for jury trial under Ariz. Const. art. 2, §§ 23 or 24 because they had no common law antecedent with a jury trial right, and although the defendant might have to register as a sex offender under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3821(C), this consequence was not uniformly applied.
|
|||||
| U.S. Bank, N.A v. Garcia (In re Estate of Rodriguez), 1 CA-CV 06-0383,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though decedent's marriage was void, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-2804 did not bar her husband from inheriting because it would revoke a spouse's disposition where there was a "declaration of invalidity" of a marriage, not merely the existence of an invalid marriage, and it applied to a revocable disposition, not decedent's irrevocable trust.
|
|||||
| State v. Morris, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-05-0267-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's absence during the jury commissioner's prescreening of prospective jurors did not violate defendant's right to be present at all stages of the criminal proceeding because defendant neither identified a distinctive group that was excluded from his jury panel nor claimed that the jury he received was not fair or impartial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
