 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re MH 2005-001290, 1 CA-MH 05-0022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the trial court's order as Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-509(A)(3) gave the court discretion to release information such as the impending release of the patient, even though he had not been judicially determined to be a danger to others, when the relative or victims were concerned about the release.
|
|||||
| Nordstrom v. Cruikshank, 2 CA-SA 2006-0056,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant sought special action relief in his resentencing following his first-degree murder conviction. Appellate court determined respondent trial court had proceeded, or threatened to proceed, in excess of jurisdiction because aggravating factor, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F), had to be determined by trier of fact.
|
|||||
| State v. Parks, 1 CA-CR 03-0573,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred by admitting statements of defendant's son to the police as the statements were testimonial in nature and defendant had not received a prior opportunity to cross-examine his son on the statements.
|
|||||
| State v. Gant, 2 CA-CR 2000-0430,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, September 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence seized from defendant's car one to three minutes after he had been arrested, handcuffed, and locked into the back of a patrol car was suppressed as violative of the Fourth Amendment because police lacked a warrant for the car search and defendant was no longer a risk to officer safety or at risk to destroy evidence.
|
|||||
| Hamblin v. State, 1 CA-CV 05-0059,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, September 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to probation department in a wrongful death action brought by family of a man shot by a probationer during an armed robbery because even though probationer had violated his probation, his violations were relatively minor and technical and department was not the proximate cause of victim's death.
|
|||||
| Green v. Nygaard, 2 CA-SA 2006-0062,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, September 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Special action relief was granted in a divorce case on a discovery matter because a husband's motion to compel production of an expert's file should not have been granted where a wife had withdrawn the expert from the witness list; therefore, the husband was required to show extraordinary circumstances existed under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B).
|
|||||
| Northwest Fire Dist. v. U.S. Home of Ariz. Constr. Co., 2 CA-CV 2006-0061,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, September 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of a contractor challenging a fire district's facilities benefit assessment on homes under construction was improper as the district had authority to impose the assessment under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 48-805, the assessment was not a tax or development fee, and assessment amount was rationally related to its purpose.
|
|||||
| State v. Alvarez, 2 CA-CR 2002-0084,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, September 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, admission of a deputy's testimony about what the victim told him at the scene did not violate defendant's confrontation rights under U.S. Const. amend. VI as the purpose of the deputy's interrogation of the victim was to enable assistance to meet an ongoing emergency when the victim was found bleeding profusely from his head.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Thomas v. Gordon, 1 CA-SA 06-0116,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, October 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 10.4(b), party who exercised a peremptory change of judge before appeal was not entitled, after appeal and remand, to request change of judge as matter of right. Thus, superior court correctly denied county attorney's request to change judge in a subsequent trial after exercising Ariz. R. Crim. P. 10.2 right in first trial.
|
|||||
| Tritschler v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2 CA-CV 2005-0136,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, October 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowner brought suit alleging breach of contract and bad faith against an insurer with respect to repair of damages to home. Summary judgment for insurer was not proper because fact question remained as to whether insurer was required to pay overhead and profit to the homeowner under policy, and whether insurer acted in bad faith.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
