 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beltran v. Harrah's Ariz. Corp., 2 CA-CV 2007-0169,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, July 31, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband and wife's personal injury action against an Indian community and a corporation after the husband fell inside a casino was properly dismissed because the husband and wife were precluded from bringing their claim in state court as the claim had already been litigated in a tribal court; the tribal court had entered final judgment in the case.
|
|||||
| Nowell v. Rees, 1 CA-SA 08-0102,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, July 31, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to a dismissal of the charges against him where he was not restored to competency after 21 months because, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4501 through § 13-4517 and Ariz. R. Crim. P. 11.1 through 11.6, the trial court's authority to order restoration efforts was limited to 21 months after the original finding of incompetency.
|
|||||
| State v. Botkin, 1 CA-CR 07-0083,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, July 31, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a defendant on intensive probation committed a felony, the trial court was required under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-917(B) to revoke defendant's probation and impose a term of imprisonment; the trial court did not have the discretion to reduce defendant's probationary status in order to avoid mandatory incarceration.
|
|||||
| State v. Flores, 1 CA-CR 07-0800 PRPC,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, July 31, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arizona had jurisdiction under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-108(A)(1) (2001), providing for jurisdiction of offense when result of conduct occurred within Arizona, because despite inmate having solicited to commit human smuggling under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-1002(A) (2001) and 13-2329(A) (Supp. 2007) in Mexico, conduct had significant result in Arizona.
|
|||||
| State v. Hardesty, 1 CA-CR 06-0966,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, July 31, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for marijuana possession was upheld because uniform ban on marijuana was least restrictive means under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01(C), and only means, of achieving government's compelling interest; accommodation of defendant's unlimited use of marijuana for religious purposes would hinder the State's ability to enforce law.
|
|||||
| Harris v. City of Bisbee, 2 CA-CV 2007-0160,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, August 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-122 applied where, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-112, resident failed to show some printed names and addresses on petitions had been written in presence of elector; after invalid signatures were removed, 198 valid signatures remained, and resident had collected sufficient valid signatures to permit his petitions to be processed.
|
|||||
| Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-07-0300-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 4, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of contracting without a license, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1151; however, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-807, the victims' restitution was limited to the amount necessary to recompense direct losses. On remand the trial court had to determine the amount of the victims' loss.
|
|||||
| State v. Fischer, 1 CA-CR 06-0682,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's prosecution for sexual conduct with a minor did not violate his right to religious freedom under First Amendment because Ariz. Const. art. 20, para. 2 prohibited the recognition of polygamy or plural marriage by the State under all circumstances without exception, and therefore was both facially neutral and nondiscriminatory in effect.
|
|||||
| Yollin v. City of Glendale, 1 CA-CV 07-0513,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 5, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pedestrian's notice satisfied the sum certain requirement of § 12-821.01(A) because he expressly told the city that he would release the city from any liability for his slip and fall for $ 150,000. The terms of his letter were an offer of settlement and he would have been bound if the city had accepted the offer.
|
|||||
| State v. Bocharski, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-06-0295-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 8, 2008, Decided, August 8, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's death sentence after being convicted of first-degree felony murder and burglary in the first degree was improper because gratuitous violence beyond a reasonable doubt was not established and the aggravation, absent the Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(6) aggravator, was not particularly strong.
|
|||||
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. |
