 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carroll v. Comm'n on Judicial Conduct, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-07-0066-SA,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 28, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ariz. R. Comm'n Judicial Conduct 23(c), the judge was afforded the right to a hearing and not merely the right to ask for one to be granted or denied at the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct's request.
|
|||||
| Dube v. Likins, 2 CA-CV 2006-0176,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, June 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order dismissing student's action against university officials for tortious interference with business expectancy was upheld where student's contention that officials were aiding former advisor's efforts to prevent the student from obtaining a job was neither supported by the facts alleged in the complaint nor a reasonable inference from the facts.
|
|||||
| State v. Gonzalez, 2 CA-CR 2007-0040-PR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, June 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The statute under which defendant was sentenced for, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-604.01(I), did not include attempted sexual conduct with a victim under the age of twelve; thus, the sentence imposed was illegal, and was remanded for resentencing. If the victim was under twelve, resentencing had to occur under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿¿¿13-701 and -702.
|
|||||
| Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, No. 1 CA-CV 05-0235,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, June 28, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly dismissed a mandamus claim against the Arizona Attorney General as an allegedly incorrect opinion as to Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 46-140.02 (2005) was an inappropriate basis for mandamus. A declaratory judgment action against the Governor should have been allowed, however, given her constitutional obligation to implement the law.
|
|||||
| Northwest Fire Dist. v. U.S. Home of Ariz. Constr. Co., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0377-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A fire district was unable to recover an assessment imposed on a builder because it was not authorized under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 48-805(B)(14); even if the district was allowed to promulgate special assessments, the fee here did not qualify as such because the district was unable to demonstrate the cost or associated benefits.
|
|||||
| State v. Bennett, 2 CA-CR 2006-0324,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, June 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions and sentences for drunk driving were affirmed where the records and authenticating affidavit establishing his prior convictions were not testimonial in nature, and thus, admitting them without the testimony of the persons who had prepared the records and signed the affidavit did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
|
|||||
| State v. Eggers, 2 CA-CR 2005-0320,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, June 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of first-degree murder because automatic filing of charges against juveniles in adult court under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-501(A) did not violate Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, ¿ 22 or Fifth Amendment due process and his confession's admission was harmless error given testimony on his behavior after parents disappeared.
|
|||||
| State v. Garza, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-04-0343-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's first degree murder convictions and death sentence were affirmed where he failed to demonstrate any error in voir dire, the State's peremptory strikes, the State's response to discovery requests, the admission of a jailhouse telephone conversation, and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors in the sentencing phase.
|
|||||
| State v. Andriano, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-05-0005-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by admitting evidence of defendant's attempts to obtain insurance policies on her husband's life because it was admissible under Ariz. R. Evid. 404(b) to show defendant's plan, knowledge, and intent to kill her husband, and to show that she premeditated her husband's death.
|
|||||
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. |
