 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Fedn. & Mun. Emples., AFL-CIO, Local 2384 v. City of Phoenix, 1 CA-CV 04-0766,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, August 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The union's "fair share" proposals, in requiring union and non-union members to pay dues, violated Arizona's "right to work" laws as embodied in Ariz. Const. art. 25 and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1302; employers could not impose, as a condition of employment, the requirement that any person participate in any form or design of union membership.
|
|||||
| Lemke v. Rayes, 1 CA-SA 06-0130,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, August 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court applied Blockburger test and assumed that armed robbery was the same as felony murder predicated on armed robbery. Double Jeopardy Clause's protection was not offended, however, by retrial for felony murder because jeopardy defendant faced was never terminated based on jury's inability to reach verdict.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Thomas v. Rayes, 1 CA-SA 06-0006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when she failed to communicate plea offers to him, which subsequently expired, the proper remedy was to direct the parties to return to the plea negotiation stage, rather than to order the county attorney to reinstate the expired plea offer.
|
|||||
| State v. Hampton, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-03-0033-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Eighth Amendment rights were not violated as the jury for the guilt phase was death-qualified, even though the jury was allegedly incorrectly instructed that it would not decide aggravating factors or sentencing, because the guilt-phase jury played no role in sentencing, as a second sentencing-phase jury was selected.
|
|||||
| Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County, No. 1 CA-CV 06-0309,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, August 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: HB 2145, which allowed county island residents to create fire district to obtain fire and emergency services, violated Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 2, § 19 where, although residents satisfied first prong of general law test, no other community met population classifications specified and the class was not elastic to allow members to move in and out.
|
|||||
| Denise S. v. Corsaro, 2 CA-SA 2006-0048, 2 CA-SA 2006-0055 (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, August 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In two juvenile matters, a judge abused her discretion in denying petitioners' request for a change of judge, pursuant to Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 2B, because judge misread an administrative order as giving notice to any juvenile in the county who was served with a petition that she was assigned to the case.
|
|||||
| Ritland v. Ariz. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 1 CA-CV 05-0712,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, August 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1451, 41-1092.07, and 41-1092.08, state board of medical examiners's was final decision maker, and, as such, it was not bound by ALJ's credibility findings and, as board's decision to adopt ALJ's findings and place doctor on probation could have been based on contrary and erroneous understanding of law, it was reversed.
|
|||||
| AAA Cab Serv., Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n , 2 CA-IC 2006-0003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, August 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An ALJ did not err in finding that an employee's widow was entitled to pursue her wrongful death action against an employer in a trial court where the widow was entitled to withdraw her workers' compensation claim because she had never accepted compensation under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1024(A).
|
|||||
| Charles I. Friedman, P.C. v. Microsoft Corp., 1 CA-CV 05-0313,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, August 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court acted within its discretion in awarding an enhanced lodestar of $ 19,132,728 by imposing a 3.42 multiplier in complex class action that took over 4 years of litigation before action was settled and in focusing on degree of risk and results obtained in pretrial motions but, court erred by applying multiplier to post-settlement work.
|
|||||
| Comm. for Pres. of Established Neighborhoods v. Riffel, No. 1 CA-CV 06-0443,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, August 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-101(A) required referendum proponents to insert a referendum description directly into the text of circulating petitions. Because proponents had to strictly adhere to this requirement, and the committee failed to follow it, the superior court correctly ruled that the committee's petitions were insufficient.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
