 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Coplan v. Ariz. State Bd. of Appraisal, 1 CA-CV 08-0545,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, October 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an appraiser's disciplinary matter pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-3631(A)(6) and (A)(7), superior court erred in holding sanctions that Arizona State Board of Appraisal imposed were excessive because the superior court applied an improper and insufficiently deferential standard of review.
|
|||||
| State v. Lychwick, No. 1 CA-CR 08-0517,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, October 22, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of aggravated harassment under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2921 as Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1809(J) plainly dictated a one-year period following a specific act, i.e., service of the injunction, and the date of service was excluded when calculating the injunction's expiration date.
|
|||||
| Rogers v. Cota, 1 CA-CV 08-0848,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, October 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an extreme DUI case, the municipal court did not lack jurisdiction as the mandatory assessments, incarceration costs, and surcharges were excluded when determining the municipal court's jurisdiction under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 22-301, -402.
|
|||||
| Sorokin v. Arnold, 1 CA-SA 09-0130,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, October 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: From a petition filed by a doctor seeking a court-ordered evaluation of a patient, the superior court's refusal to enter a detention order did not prevent judgment from which an appeal could be taken as a detention order was not necessary for a hearing to proceed on court-ordered treatment under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-529.
|
|||||
| Lake v. City of Phoenix, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-09-0036-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 29, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Minjares v. State, 1 CA-CV 08-0713,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, October 29, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Haney, No. 1 CA-CR 08-0717,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, October 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Latham, No. 1 CA-CR 08-0698,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, October 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Verma v. Stuhr, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0576, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0747, No. 1 CA-CV 08-0052,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, October 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
