 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Backus v. State, Nos. 1 CA-CV 07-0640, 1 CA-CV 07-0671 (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, July 17, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Notice of claim adequately set forth facts supporting settlement demand under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 12-821.01 (2003) where it indicated that the claimant was a surviving adult child seeking compensation for the death of her father due to the failure to provide him with adequate medical care while he was incarcerated.
|
|||||
| State v. Barragan-Sierra, 1 CA-CR 07-0048,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, July 17, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit human smuggling was affirmed because the language of the conspiracy and human smuggling statutes, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-1003(A) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-2319(A) and (D)(2), when read together, plainly allowed the person smuggled to be convicted of conspiracy to commit human smuggling.
|
|||||
| Hounshell v. White, No. 1 CA-CV 06-0728,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, July 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board of Supervisors of Apache County (Board) had authority under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 11-523 to remove sheriff from office for failure to post bond; however, premium on bond was public expense when bond met requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 38-254. As sheriff was prevailing party, he was entitled to attorneys' fees under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 12-348.
|
|||||
| State v. Zaragoza, 2 CA-CR 2007-0117,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, July 23, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in instructing the jury on the definition of "actual physical control" of a vehicle, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 28-1383(A)(1), where a person had not committed an offense until that person created such a danger by actually physically controlling a vehicle. The error was not harmless and defendant's convictions were reversed.
|
|||||
| State v. Garcia, No. 1 CA-CR 07-0314,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, July 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A conviction for disorderly conduct was improperly classified as a class 1 misdemeanor because the phrase "intentional or knowing" in Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-702(G) applied only to serious physical injury and not to defendant's act of recklessly handling a gun, which should have been classified as a class 6 felony under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-2904(B).
|
|||||
| Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-07-0402-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. R. Civ. P. 8(a) could not be revised by the Court of Appeals; the rules of civil procedure could be revised only through the Supreme Court's power to interpret procedural rules under Ariz. Const. art. 6, ¿ 5, cl. 5, or through the procedures established in Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 28. However, the appellate court applied the correct standard.
|
|||||
| First American Title Ins. Co. v. Action Acquisitions, LLC, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-07-0412-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although failure to pay value exclusion applied if purchaser's loss was caused by failure to pay valuable consideration, $3,500 payment by purchasers was sufficient to secure recording act protection, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 33-412. "Created" risk exclusion of title insurance applied as purchasers created risk that resulted in loss and was enforceable.
|
|||||
| State v. Martinez, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-05-0507-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to compel a witness to testify on his behalf was not violated by the trial court's failure to require one of defendant's companions on the night of the murder to testify because the companion had continued reason to fear prosecution, as his postconviction relief proceedings were still pending.
|
|||||
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. |
