 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. West, L.L.C., 2 CA-CV 2006-0114,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, July 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the appellate court lacked jurisdiction, the estate's appeal of a trial court order compelling arbitration was treated as a petition for special action. The trial court properly held that the decedent's wife had actual authority to sign an arbitration agreement with a rehabilitation center where she had a history of acting on his behalf.
|
|||||
| Ariz. Dep't of Revenue v. Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Co., 1 CA-TX 06-0015,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, July 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tax dispute, Arizona Department of Revenue correctly determined corporation's property's valuation because, despite corporation's arguments to the contrary, obsolescence was already considered in the statutory formula set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-14204.
|
|||||
| State v. Bassett, 1 CA-CR 06-0088,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, July 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was tried for first-degree murder of two women. Trial court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing on whether it was necessary for defendant to wear a stun belt during trial because defendant failed to object to the device, and he failed to file a motion seeking a hearing before trial began.
|
|||||
| Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie, 1 CA-SA 07-0078,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, July 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowners, after becoming dissatisfied with defendant's contract work, discovered that defendant was an unlicensed contractor. Criminal charges were brought. Homeowners were entitled to full restitution, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-603(C), for the money they paid because this was a direct loss that was caused by criminal conduct.
|
|||||
| State v. Gant, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-06-0385-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The warrantless search of appellant's car was not justified by the search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement where appellant and the other arrestees were handcuffed and secured in patrol cars and thus, neither officer safety nor the preservation of evidence rationales justified the warrantless search.
|
|||||
| Melgar v. Campo, 1 CA-CV 06-0408,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, July 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arizona court that had taken emergency jurisdiction over a child custody case under a Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) provision, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1034, had no jurisdiction to modify a North Carolina custody order because the court did not first make findings required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1033.
|
|||||
| Stonecreek Bldg. Co. v. Shure, 1 CA-CV 06-0372,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, July 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owners' withholding of progress payment to a contractor because of alleged defects in work not covered in the contractor's invoice violated the Prompt Pay Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 32-1129 to 32-1129.06, because requiring such payment was in keeping with the Act's purpose and would not deprive the owners of other remedies.
|
|||||
| Sun City Grand Cmty. Ass'n v. Maricopa County, 1 CA-TX 06-0018,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, July 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The tax court properly granted a taxpayer summary judgment on its challenge to the county's classification of a clubhouse, golf cart and snack shop building, and surrounding property where Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-13402 did not require owners and residents to be the exclusive users in order to be classified as a common area.
|
|||||
| State v. Romero, 2 CA-CR 2007-0075-PR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, July 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's petition for post-conviction relief was denied because he was not eligible for mandatory probation under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01 based on a guilty plea to promoting prison contraband under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2505(A)(3) for possessing drugs; this offense was not one for personal possession of a controlled substance.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
