 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Western Water Works v. Indus. Comm'n, 1 CA-IC 05-0133,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: One-year filing requirement set by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(A) was met and employee's workers' compensation claim was not barred by statute of limitations; Ariz. Admin. Code R20a'5a'150f permitted joinder of another party following timely filing of a claim; thus, joinder of employer as statutory employer was proper although time had expired.
|
|||||
| Lubin v. Thomas, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0321-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County recorder was authorized under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 16-322 and 16-351(A) to invalidate signatures on a school board candidate's petition for legitimate reasons other than those specified in a challenging voter's complaint. Superior court properly enjoined placement of the candidate's name on the ballot based on insufficient signatures.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. v. Gottsfield, 1 CA-SA 06-0106,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, October 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because civil procedural rules, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3704(B) (2003), applied to sexually violent person (SVP) proceedings, which were not analogous to a criminal trial, a ruling that an SVP's counsel could conduct informal interviews with a state treatment center's employees was vacated; interviews had to be conducted per the rules.
|
|||||
| Falcon v. Maricopa County, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0106-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a county board of supervisors was the chief executive officer for Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(i), a deceased patient's surviving children failed to meet R. 4.1(i) service requirements or Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01(A) (2003) in a medical malpractice action against the county. Service of one board member was not service of the board as an entity.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. Indus. Comm'n , 1 CA-IC 05-0141,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, October 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 4(a) applied to the Industrial Commission of Arizona, which was required to transmit a timely but misfiled Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-120.21 (2003) special action petition to division one of the court of appeals. As the special action was timely filed with the ICA, the court had jurisdiction to consider the case.
|
|||||
| State v. Londo, 1 CA-CR 05-1190, 1 CA-CR 05-1191 (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, October 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arizona court of appeals held that a defendant's statements were not obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Miranda, and the trial court did not err by admitting his confession, where the choking defendant was asked if he had swallowed crack cocaine, and admitted that he had, whereupon he was taken for medical emergency treatment.
|
|||||
| State v. Olmstead, No. 1 CA-CR 05-1240,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, October 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court imposing a presumptive sentence for aggravated assault did not err despite having found mitigating but not aggravating factors under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-702(D), because it considered the defendant's individual circumstances and imposed a sentence well within its discretion based on the crime and the defendant's criminal history.
|
|||||
| Cundiff v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2 CA-CV 2005-0209,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, October 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In insurance dispute, insurer was entitled to offset workers' compensation benefits under policy's underinsured motorist provisions because collateral source rule did not apply. Trial court lacked authority to grant insured relief because insured did not apply for modification of arbitrator's award under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1513.
|
|||||
| Meiners v. Indus. Comm'n, 2 CA-IC 2006-0005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, October 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an employee's request to rearrange his workers' compensation benefits, the doctrine of res judicata precluded the ALJ from reducing the employee's benefits; the ALJ had no authority to find the employee's earning capacity had increased under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1044(F) absent a petition by the employer requesting such a determination.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
