 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State Farm Ins. Cos. v. Premier Manufactured Sys., 1 CA-CV 04-0465,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a strict product liability action, a seller was not jointly and severally liable for damages suffered due to a leaking water filtration system because Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿¿12-2506(A) plainly provided for comparative fault. The application of such did not violate Ariz. Const. art. 18, ¿¿6 because there was no deprivation of a cause of action.
|
|||||
| Garcia v. Browning, 2 CA-SA 2006-0040,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, September 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-205 (2006), Arizona's statute on affirmative defenses, applied to a criminal defendant who allegedly committed first-degree murder before the effective date of the statute but whose case had yet to be tried, so court reversed portion of a judge's order determining otherwise.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Kay S., No. 1 CA-CV 04-0343,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, September 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a petition for dissolution and child custody, when father's counsel also served as a judge pro tempore in same division in which matter was set, second trial judge erred because second judge should have disqualified original judge. A third judge merely mirrored findings of original judge; mother was entitled to independent judgment.
|
|||||
| Mago v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc., No. 1 CA-CV 04-0144,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, September 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Leased car developed numerous problems. Trial court erred in granting manufacturer's motion for summary judgment under Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.S. ¿¿ 2301-2312, because lessee was a consumer; however, lessee status precluded claim under Arizona Motor Vehicle Warranties Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿¿ 44-1261 to 44-1267.
|
|||||
| Phelps Dodge Corp. v. El Paso Corp., 1 CA-CV 05-0683,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, September 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation and its subsidiaries challenged, before the FERC, gas company's alleged withholding of natural gas; that claim was rejected. Although corporation alleged state law claims in superior court, gas company's motion to dismiss was properly granted because 15 U.S.C.S. ¿ 717r(b) necessarily precluded de novo litigation.
|
|||||
| Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0079-SA,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Governor's item veto of H.B. 2661, ¿ 5, 47th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2006) exceeded her item veto authority under Ariz. Const. art V, ¿ 7 because H.B. 2661, ¿ 5, which related to state employee compensation, was not an appropriation subject to such veto where it failed to set aside a certain sum of public revenue from a specific funding source.
|
|||||
| Southwest Transmission Coop., Inc. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 1 CA-CV 05-0369,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 15, ¿ 2, electric cooperative was public service corporation and subject to Arizona Corporation Commission's regulation pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 15, ¿ 3; cooperative furnished electricity for light, fuel, or power and was an entity clothed with a public interest under the eight factors articulated in a prior case.
|
|||||
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. |
