 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Haines v. Goldfield Prop. Owners Ass'n, 1 CA-CV 04-0652,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, October 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was not proper for association in owners' declaratory action seeking to void association resolution regarding disbursement of excess funds assessed because there was question as to whether funds were held in trust for members or whether payments were impermissible corporate distributions.
|
|||||
| Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 1 CA-CV 04-0048,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, October 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While wrongful death action for loss of frozen pre-embryos was properly dismissed because pre-implantation fertilized human eggs were not "persons" for purposes of ¿ 12-611, claims of negligent loss, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of bailment agreement were arguably not barred by medical malpractice act.
|
|||||
| Martens v. Indus. Comm'n , 1 CA-IC 04-0092,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, October 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ properly denied employee's motion for protective order to allow friend to attend her psychiatric examination where Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 23-1026(A) did not provide employee right to have anyone other than physician present; ALJ found that employee had not established good cause to allow third person, and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 35 was inapplicable.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Verburg v. Jones, 1 CA-SA 05-0187,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, November 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In DUI trial, officer could testify about, and prosecutor could comment on, defendant's refusal to perform field sobriety tests because, under the Fourth Amendment, field sobriety tests were a lawful search and defendant did not have the right to refuse the tests.
|
|||||
| Nikont v. Hantman, 2 CA-SA 2005-0072,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, November 2, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge did not err in denying inmate's request for change of judge and deny post-conviction relief where, pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 10.2(a), that inmate could receive jury trial on existence of aggravating circumstances was simply incidental to the relief that the supreme court granted on review--the remand of her case for resentencing.
|
|||||
| Tissicino v. Peterson, 2 CA-CV 2005-0060,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, November 2, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit by a deceased child's parents alleging negligent entrustment of a gun, summary judgment for a gun owner was improper when genuine issues remained as to whether gun owner should have known of unreasonable risk of harm and whether shooting was a supervening cause of the child's death that was unforeseeable to the gun owner.
|
|||||
| P&P Mehta LLC v. Jones, 1 CA-SA 05-0183,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, November 10, 2005
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On review of administrative agency's decision to deny petitioner's application for liquor license, trial court applied the wrong standard in denying a stay because "good cause," pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 12-911(A)(1), meant that petitioner had shown a colorable claim and that the balance of harm favored granting the stay.
|
|||||
| State v. Keith, 2 CA-CR 2005-0026,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, November 10, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not have the right to have a jury determine prior convictions and because double jeopardy principles did not apply to the prior conviction determination, the court affirmed defendant's conviction for aggravated assault and his enhanced, presumptive prison term.
|
|||||
| P&P Mehta LLC v. Jones, 1 CA-SA 05-0183,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, November 17, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In denying a stay of implementation of an administrative agency's decision to deny a liquor license to a store owner, superior court erred in applying the more traditional Shoen standard because, for purposes of Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 12-911(A)(1), a less-exacting standard was required. "Good cause" meant the showing of a colorable claim.
|
|||||
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. |
