 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Pepper Supply Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-03-0290-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 15, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer was required to prove a misrepresentation defense to an insurance claim by a preponderance of the evidence, and where a jury was improperly instructed that the burden was clear and convincing evidence, a new trial was warranted.
|
|||||
| State v. Armstrong, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-00-0595-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 16, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, the prosecutor did not act in bad faith or engage in willful misconduct by entering into a last-minute plea agreement with defendant's girlfriend to obtain her testimony; the prosecutor's change of strategy was reasonable.
|
|||||
| State v. Armstrong, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-00-0595-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 16, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's death sentences were vacated where the finding on one aggravating circumstance and on seven mitigating circumstances by the trial court rather than the convicting jury could not be deemed harmless error.
|
|||||
| State v. Cons, 2 CA-CR 2002-0333,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, July 22, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was charged with forgery; State alleged defendant had prior felonies. Trial court did not commit reversible error in allowing amendment of prior convictions' allegations. A heightened burden of proof of prior history was unnecessary.
|
|||||
| Cal. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 1 CA-CV 03-0645,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, July 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer of a rental property was not liable for a dog bite that occurred at another residence, even though the dog belonged to an insured, because the insured was not using the second residence "in connection" with her apartment.
|
|||||
| State v. Ofstedahl, 2 CA-CR 2003-0080-PR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, July 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's first two convictions, pursuant to guilty plea, could not serve as historical prior convictions to enhance sentences for other convictions entered at same time; there could not have been valid factual basis for the prior convictions.
|
|||||
| Lamb Excavation, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 2 CA-CV 2002-0139,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, July 29, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment entered in an excavation company's mechanics' lien foreclosure suit was reversed. Equitable subrogation doctrine should have been applied; mortgage corporation was subrogated to lien held by bank that gave original construction loan.
|
|||||
| John C. Lincoln Hosp. & Health Corp. v. Maricopa County, 1 CA-CV 03-0074,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, August 3, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute between private hospitals and the County arising out of billing for emergency medical services; trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that County was equitably estopped from contesting a percentage assumption figure.
|
|||||
| State v. Shipman, 2 CA-CV 2002-0158,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, August 3, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court erred in imposing civil sanctions against the State when it sought special action review of the dismissal of a DUI prosecution. Civil sanctions could not be imposed in a special action arising from a criminal proceeding.
|
|||||
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. |
