 |
|
 |
|
|
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 v. Lockwood, 2 CA-CR 2008-0157,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, September 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Grand v. Nacchio, 2 CA-CV 2009-0014,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, September 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly dismissed the trust's securities fraud claims against appellees where its allegations fell short of demonstrating appellees had participated in the trust's purchases of company stock for purposes of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2003(A). The trust's claim for control person and aiding and abetting liability were properly dismissed.
|
|||||
| In re MH 2008-001795, 1 CA-MH 08-0049,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, September 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-501.12(A), a psychiatry resident working under a temporary permit was a licensed physician and was authorized to submit an affidavit to the superior court in support of a petition for court-ordered evaluation of a patient.
|
|||||
| M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. v. State ex rel. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 1 CA-TX 07-0011,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, October 6, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Department of Revenue improperly calculated the sales factor fraction of a taxpayer's corporate income tax apportionment formula under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 43-1131 as the taxpayer's costs of generating the income from the sales of servicing rights were mostly incurred in Colorado, and the income from should have been excluded from the sales factor.
|
|||||
| A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control Dist., No. 1 CA-CV 07-0453,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, October 8, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Grant, No. 1 CA-SA 09-0145,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, October 8, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re MH 2008-002596, No. 1 CA-MH 09-0003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, October 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a commitment for involuntary mental health treatment, crisis specialist qualified as an acquaintance witness under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-539(B) because to exclude the specialist based on the length of time she had contact with the patient would exclude the very type of witness that the statute called for.
|
|||||
| Mousa v. Saba, 1 CA-CV 08-0276,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, October 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute alleging, among other things, breach of contract and unjust enrichment action, a trial court erred in granting summary judgment for a corporation because Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2152(A) did not prevent him from suing to recover the reasonable value of services provided.
|
|||||
| State v. Patterson, 1 CA-CR 08-0610,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, October 20, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In sentencing defendant for possession of narcotic drugs, a trial court did not err in finding that defendant was not eligible for probation under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(H)(1) because trial court properly reasoned that decision from Division 2 of the intermediate appellate court was not well-founded.
|
|||||
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. |
