 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Haines v. Goldfield Prop. Owners Ass'n, 1 CA-CV 04-0652,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, September 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute among property owners, a homeowners' association, and a partnership regarding payment of funds, superior court erred in granting summary judgment because issue of fact existed as to whether the funds were being held in trust or whether they were impermissible corporate distributions pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-11301.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. Hotham, 1 CA-SA 05-0190,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, September 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner, who was facing criminal charges, sought special action relief when trial court denied the legal defender's office's request to withdraw as counsel. Trial court erred in denying motion because petitioner had right to choose representation by a non-publicly funded attorney pursuant to Sixth Amendment and Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24.
|
|||||
| State v. Ward, 1 CA-CR 04-0435-PR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, September 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When petitioner entered into a guilty plea arising out of kidnapping charges, although he waived his right to a trial by jury, petitioner did not waive his right to be sentenced by a jury, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, because petitioner did not know he possessed this right at the time of plea's entry.
|
|||||
| Bennett v. Brownlow, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0215-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 9, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Citizen lacked standing to maintain her action against a county ordinance that regulated the commercial use of the Yavapai County courthouse plaza because she could not show a particularized injury to herself as the application by the citizen's group was not rejected on the non-profit requirement; citizen was not a sponsor.
|
|||||
| Natl Broker Assocs., Inc v. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 1 CA-CV 03-0810, 1 CA-CV 04-0534 (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, September 13, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sanctions were properly imposed where trial court made it clear that deposition needed to be done quickly because of approaching trial date and the broker did not object to the 11 calendar day notice period, and broker merely ignored the notice of deposition, which constituted a failure to obey the trial court's order.
|
|||||
| Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Klausner, 1 CA-SA 05-0118,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, September 13, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Special action was granted in the prosecutor's favor, challenging the grant of jury trials to defendants charged with misdemeanor assault, because jury trial rights provided by the territorial penal code prior to Arizona statehood were not preserved by the Arizona Constitution.
|
|||||
| State v. Vandever, 1 CA-CR 04-0589,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, September 13, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court did not err in not allowing defendant to present evidence of his reputation for acting carefully and prudently in conducting his daily affairs during his trial for manslaughter because such evidence was not pertinent under Ariz. R. Evid. 404(a)(1) to whether he acted in a manner consistent with that reputation at time of vehicle collision.
|
|||||
| In re William L., 1 CA-JV 04-0206,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, September 15, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in ordering juvenile to pay the victim restitution pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-344(A) for stealing and totaling her car because the victim had to pay her finance company the balance due after the insurance proceeds were applied, and thus she sustained an economic loss as a direct result of juvenile's actions.
|
|||||
| Joffe v. Acacia Mortg. Corp., 1 CA-CV 02-0701,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, September 20, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cellular telephone consumer alleged that company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C.S. § 227, by soliciting him via an automatically dialed Internet-to-phone text message. Summary judgment for consumer was proper because TCPA did not violate company's First Amendment rights.
|
|||||
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. |
