|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
State Courts -
Arizona - September 6 - September 20, 2005
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback