 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ledvina v. Cerasani, 2 CA-CV 2005-0035,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, October 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' defamation action, which stemmed from a police report defendants had made, because the report was absolutely privileged.
|
|||||
| State v. Price, 1 CA-CR 04-0508,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, October 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's motion for a Dessureault hearing because the circumstances surrounding the show-up identification with defendant's picture showed it was reliable, thus in-court identification was not tainted. Also evidence did not support lesser-included instruction on disturbing the peace on the aggravated assault charges.
|
|||||
| Ulan v. Pima County Bd. of Supervisors, 2 CA-CV 2005-0069,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, October 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in interpreting statutes on method of calculating interest on tax lien certificates; tax liens were sold to bidder offering to accept the lowest interest rate, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18114, together with interest cap in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-18053; legislature's intent was to provide measure of protection to redeeming owners.
|
|||||
| Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez, 2 CA-SA 2006-0070,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, November 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's order to transfer a wife's wrongful death action to another county was vacated. Because a county was a defendant, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-411(B) governed the transfer under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-408, and the trial court wrongly required the wife to show foreboding inconvenience or hardship.
|
|||||
| Morse v. Indus. Comm'n, 1 CA-IC 06-0011,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, November 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a worker's compensation matter, Industrial Commission of Arizona properly calculated injured claimant's wages, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. 23-1041, based on earnings from employer because to include wages from future employer, for whom worker had not yet begun to work, was too speculative.
|
|||||
| League of Ariz. Cities & Towns v. Brewer, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0286-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, November 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowners, who were real parties in interest, sought to place proposition on ballot that would limit use of eminent domain. League of public entities sought to enjoin proposition. Injunction was properly denied because alleged violation of Revenue Source Rule, Ariz. Const. art. IX, § 23 was not type of defect that could be reviewed pre-election.
|
|||||
| State v. Bennett, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-05-0533-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, November 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In mother's second post-conviction relief petition, mother was not precluded under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2.a(3) from raising an alleged claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because first post-conviction relief counsel would have to allege that post-conviction counsel was ineffective, which would have been an improper argument.
|
|||||
| State v. McIntosh, 1 CA-CR 05-0733,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, November 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err by accepting a verdict form to which the jury foreperson had affixed his juror number rather than his signed name. By writing his juror number on the signature line for the verdict, the foreperson expressed his intent to validate the verdict, thereby properly signing the verdict pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 23.1(a).
|
|||||
| State v. Sabin, 2 CA-CR 2005-0181,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, November 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his confession because connection between officers' illegal search of the victim's diary and defendant's confession was too attenuated to justify exclusion of the evidence; officer's comments to defendant about a family meeting, rather than comments about diary, triggered the confession.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
