 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cullum v. Cullum, 1 CA-CV 06-0038,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former wife was properly awarded $500 per month for 72 months in spousal support because she was entitled to maintenance under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-319(A) where she required more education to increase her income, and she had not worked full time during most of the marriage.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Cochise Health Sys., 2 CA-CV 2006-0193,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract and related tort claims against a county was upheld because plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and failed to preserve their argument for appeal; plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01(A) as to a director since they sent notice only to the county.
|
|||||
| Levy v. Alfaro, 1 CA-CV 06-0141,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a negligence case, a judge did not violate Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 27 by commenting during jury selection about the nature of injuries suffered; the judge corrected his comment to say that the case before the jury did not involve a broken neck, and that the case had to be decided on its own facts.
|
|||||
| Levy v. Alfaro , 1 CA-CV 06-0141,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, June 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury suit, business owners were awarded expert fees; the fees included time the witness spent testifying and also time spent in preparation and consultation because Ariz. R. Civ. P. 68(d) was not limited to those fees incurred for testimony, but included all "reasonable expert witness fees" incurred after offer of judgment was made.
|
|||||
| State v. Barnes, 2 CA-CR 2006-0191,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, June 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to suppress evidence was properly granted in a case where a female officer conducting a strip search removed a plastic bag protruding from defendant's anus without securing a warrant since this violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.
|
|||||
| Crowell v. Jejna, 1 CA-CV 06-0430,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, June 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial, Ariz. Const. art. 2, §§ 23 and 24, where Scottsdale, Ariz., City Code §§ 16-242(a), and 16-247(d), (l) permitted nude dancing, subject only to limited restrictions; thus, the common-law crime of indecent exposure was not committed by persons who were nude in a public place.
|
|||||
| In re Andrew C., 1 CA-JV 06-0079,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, June 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly ordered to pay the costs of a victim's pre-paid culinary class as part of his restitution under Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1(A)(8) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-344 after a delinquency adjudication because the economic loss prong of an applicable three-prong test was satisfied.
|
|||||
| Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra, No. 1 CA-SA 07-0029,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, June 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1381(F) did not grant State right to jury trial in misdemeanor DUI cases as only defendant was entitled to jury trial and only if defendant asked for it. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3983 and Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(b) required consent to defendant's waiver of jury trial only when right was granted to State by constitution or statute.
|
|||||
| State v. Hall, No. 1 CA-CR 06-0664,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, June 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no reversible error in defendant's DUI convictions and sentences of jail time and probation because they were permitted by law, he was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the trial court afforded him all of his rights, pursuant to relevant constitutional, statutory, and procedural provisions.
|
|||||
| Catrone v. Miles, 1 CA-SA 06-0277,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, June 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disclosure of some of a brother's special education records was appropriate in a medical malpractice case because they were not entirely protected by the medical records privilege in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2292; the records were not maintained for purposes of patient diagnosis or treatment under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2991(5).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
