 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Harvest v. Craig, 1 CA-CV 01-0262,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, May 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statute which defined the degree of proof needed for success in malpractice action against health care providers in cases related to female patients and labor and delivery did not violate the anti-abrogation clause of the Arizona Constitution.
|
|||||
| McMann v. City of Tucson, 2 CA-CV 2001-0082, 2 CA-CV 2001-0163, (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, May 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no legislative intent to preempt a city from requiring background checks on prospective firearms purchasers at events held at its own convention center in legislation that prohibited private property owner from doing the same.
|
|||||
| State v. O'Dell, 2 CA-CR 2001-0031, 2 CA-CR 2001-0163, 2 CA-CR 2001-0164, 2 CA-CR 2001-0166, 2 CA-CR 2001-0167, 2 CA-CR 2001-0168, 2 CA-CR 2001-0169, 2 CA-CR 2001-0177, 2 CA-CR 2001-0190 (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, May 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred dismissing DUI charges and driving with blood alcohol content of 0.10 percent or more because State failed to preserve intoxilyzer data, that no longer existed; there had been no prior discovery order State failed to comply with.
|
|||||
| State v. Sorkhabi, 1 CA-CR 01-0605,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, May 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where victim of resisting arrest offense was an Indian, and the crime was committed within Indian country, the State had no subject matter jurisdiction to try defendant for the crime.
|
|||||
| Stewart v. Smith, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-01-0433-CQ,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: If defendant asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time in a successive petition for review, the question of preclusion had to be determined by the nature of the right allegedly affected by counsel's ineffective performance.
|
|||||
| Weber v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 2 CA-CV 2001-0117,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, May 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A lien asserted by an employer against the employee's settlement that was reached with a settling tortfeasor was subject to reduction based on the equitable apportionment rule.
|
|||||
| State v. Martinez, 1 CA-CR 01-0350,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, June 4, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statutory presumption contained element of defense of justification (crime prevention) and applied to elements of a defense, but it disappeared in face of contradictory evidence presented by state and did not remain to create element of defense.
|
|||||
| In re Miranda, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0090-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 10, 2002, Decided , June 10, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney failed to disclose an issue in connection with the state bar's grievance investigation, the attorney was held to have violated the ethical rules, and she was censured and placed on probation.
|
|||||
| In re Mettler, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0094-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 14, 2002, Decided , June 14, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was censured and placed on probation for two years where, inter alia, he did not fully cooperate with opposing counsel pursuant to a court order which resulted in taxable costs in the amount of $ 6,445 being assessed against his clients.
|
|||||
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. |
