 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Acuna v. Kroack, 2 CA-CV 2005-0049,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, October 6, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court reversed the apportionment of liability for a motor vehicle accident against a passenger on a motorist's negligent entrustment claim because there was no evidence to support that the passenger either knew or should have known that the driver was incompetent to drive when she permitted him to do so.
|
|||||
| In re Manny, 2 CA-JV 2005-0001,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, October 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court erred in sentencing mother to a four-month jail term for contempt pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 12-863. Mother should have been sentenced under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 8-234 as it created the duty the mother breached and authorized the court's order that the mother later violated; superior courts did not have option of choosing.
|
|||||
| Ariz. Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, 1 CA-CV 04-0061,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, October 21, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In deciding equal protection challenges to redistricting plans, a trial court erred in utilizing the strict scrutiny standard because there had been no unconstitutional discrimination against a suspect class warranting strict scrutiny review as plans did not impose severe restrictions that substantially burdened the right to vote.
|
|||||
| Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Arizona Supreme Court. No. CV-05-0104-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Alire, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-05-0136-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Chiappetta, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-05-0134-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Glassel, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-03-0022-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court denied defendant's motion for reconsideration after upholding his murder conviction and death sentence because while court made error when it stated that trial court had prevented defendant from asking two jurors for their meaning of phrase "sufficiently substantial to call for leniency," error was not sufficient to require reconsideration.
|
|||||
| State v. Tankersley, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-01-0446-PC,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 25, 2005, Decided , October 25, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following defendant's trial for first degree murder and sexual assault, additional DNA testing was performed; superior court's post-conviction order following an evidentiary hearing did not comply with Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.8 because it did not facilitate review; superior court needed to enter specific findings of fact.
|
|||||
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. |
