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 21 - October 5, 2005
  
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office v. Maricopa County Emple. Merit Sys. Comm'n, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0046-PR, SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 21, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: In an employee's termination, sheriff's office did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in terminating employee after employee was involved in an altercation because termination as a disciplinary action fell within acceptable range for punishment, pursuant to Maricopa County, Ariz., Employee Merit System R. 10.16.

Search Cases for Free
  
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit Sys. Council, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0356-PR, SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 21, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: In ordering the reinstatement of a terminated county police officer, a merit system review council reasonably interpreted an administrative rule to provide that a preponderance of the evidence standard applied; Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 38-1003 did not require a deferential arbitrary or capricious standard of review.

Search Cases for Free
  
In re Commitment of Frankovitch, 2 CA-MH 2004-0005-SP, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, September 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's petition to change his status as a sexually violent person under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 36-3709 because the fact that trial court agreed with State's experts that defendant would reoffend if discharged and not defendant's experts did not mean the trial court's conclusion was unsupported by the evidence.

Search Cases for Free
  
In re MH2004-001987, 1 CA-MH 05-0007, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, September 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 36-539(B) did not require a witness be personally present for a hearing on a petition for court-ordered treatment, and Ariz. R. Evid. 611(a) and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 43(f) did not necessarily preclude telephonic testimony. Lack of face-to-face confrontation did not violate the patient's procedural due process rights.

Search Cases for Free
  
Villalpando v. Reagan, 1 CA-CV 04-0775, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, September 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: In defendant's challenge to the denial of her request to disqualify a substituted prosecutor, appointed by the city prosecutor, as the city prosecutor's alleged conflict of interest was based on defendant's employment in the city attorney's office, his own withdrawal was sufficient to defeat any appearance of impropriety.

Search Cases for Free
  
Harrington v. Pulte Home Corp., 1 CA-CV 04-0576, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, September 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Trial court erred in denying motion to compel arbitration of home builder and sales agents because arbitration clause was an effective statement that right to jury trial would not be afforded and was consistent with buyers' reasonable expectations. Also buyers failed to present individualized evidence to show arbitration costs were prohibitive.

Search Cases for Free
  
Hourani v. Benson Hosp., 2 CA-CV 2004-0155, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, September 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Hospital was not entitled to summary judgment in doctor's appeal of the revocation of his hospital privileges because Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 36-445.02(B) permitted the doctor to seek injunctive relief to correct errors, but summary judgment for the doctor was improper where questions of fact existed on whether procedural defects actually occurred.

Search Cases for Free
  
Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C., 2 CA-CV 2005-0037, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, September 30, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Summary judgment in favor of a company was reversed and remanded because the transaction between the company and a debtor appeared to include all of the elements of a fraudulent transfer under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 44-1005, and the debtor received no value from the company in exchange for the transfer, and had no other assets.

Search Cases for Free
  
Scheehle v. Justices of the Ariz. Supreme Court, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0103-CQ, SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Under Ariz. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 3(E)(1)(d)(i) and 3(E)(1)(a), rule of necessity obliged Arizona Supreme Court to sit in answering questions certified in arbitrator's case even though its members were nominal parties to the action; even if arbitrator could establish justices had view on question, allegation did not constitute bias or prejudice.

Search Cases for Free
  
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Ariz., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-04-0103-CQ, SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 5, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Arizona Supreme Court had authority to promulgate a court rule authorizing the superior courts in each county of the State of Arizona to require active members of the State bar to provide limited service as arbitrators, and the exercise of that authority was neither constricted by nor inconsistent with Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 12-133.

Search Cases for Free
  
Back to Top
  


Copyright© 2011 LexisNexis®, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.