 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Estate of Reinen v. Northern Ariz. Orthopedics, Supreme Court No. CV-98-0411-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In medical malpractice case, by failing to complain before or during plaintiff's presentation of expert testimony, defendants waived any legal objection to expert's qualifications or the foundation for his opinions.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Dorman, 2 CA-CV 99-0113,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, August 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court refused to address merits of father's claim concerning custody modification because he failed to challenge alleged noncompliance by special action and he failed to demonstrate prejudice from trial court's procedure.
|
|||||
| Isbell v. Maricopa County, Supreme Court No. CV-99-0329-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 31, 2000
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant had a duty to maintain safe roadways; the jury found that defendant breached that duty; and notice of the defect was not required because plaintiffs relied on allegations that defendant itself was directly negligent.
|
|||||
| Isbell v. State, Supreme Court No. CV-99-0330-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court judgment was vacated because the Ariz. Corporation Commission's order was properly admitted in that it was not a document described in and prepared under the authority of the federal statute.
|
|||||
| Murcott v. Best Western Int'l, Inc., 1 CA-CV 99-0494,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wrongful discharge case, denial of former employer's motion for judgment as matter of law was affirmed; former employee's whistle-blowing about possible antitrust violations served public purpose even though no violations were proven.
|
|||||
| Recorp Partners, Inc. v. Gust Rosenfeld, P.L.C., 1 CA-CV 99-0371,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, August 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A certain relevant legal memorandum in this case was not made in furtherance of the litigation, such that in appellants' defamation action, appellees were not entitled to absolute judicial immunity based on that memorandum.
|
|||||
| State v. O'Meara, Supreme Court No. CR-99-0226-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The correct standard to evaluate reasonable suspicion supporting the detention of appellant and his vehicle for a search was the totality of the circumstances, even though each circumstance had a potentially innocent explanation.
|
|||||
| State v. Petrak, 1 CA-CR 99-0730,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court failed to properly instruct jury that in order to convict defendant under weapons misconduct statute State had to prove that defendant intended to use or could have used weapon to further underlying drug offense.
|
|||||
| State v. Wood, 1 CA-CR 99-0896,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, August 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing custodial interference charge brought against father. Statute did not require pendency of a custody proceeding before father could be charged with custodial interference.
|
|||||
| TWE Retirement Fund Trust v. Ream, 1 CA-CV 99-0497,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, August 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Litigant could have filed notice of lis pendens on Arizona property in connection with extraterritorial litigation affecting title to that property, and appellant could not have recovered for wrongful filing against litigant's attorney.
|
|||||
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. |
