 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim, 1 CA-CV 07-0550,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 12, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The costs judgment against the debtor was a premarital debt and thus, the marital community could not be responsible for the premarital obligation, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 25-215(B). Debtor's obligation to pay attorneys' fees arose out of receipt of property prior to his marriage; thus, conduct giving rise to the debt occurred prior to his marriage.
|
|||||
| In re Crane, Supreme Court No. SB-08-0107-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 13, 2008, Decided, August 13, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Hineman, Supreme Court No. SB-08-0108-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 13, 2008, Decided, August 13, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re McDonald, Supreme Court No. SB-08-0109-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 13, 2008, Decided, August 13, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Member of the State Bar, Supreme Court No. SB-08-0114-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 19, 2008, Decided, August 19, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer who violated her duties and obligations as a lawyer and member of the State Bar of Arizona was censured, placed on probation with the condition that she complete a study on the deadly sins of conflict, and ordered to pay the Bar costs, expenses, and interest, pursuant to Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 60(b).
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. Hale, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-08-0208-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 19, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The signatures on a candidate's nominating petition were properly counted even though the signers had provided a post office box in the signature line because although Ariz. Rev. Stat. ¿ 16-315(A)(4) suggested that a residence address was intended, there was unrebutted evidence that county recorders had verified the signers as registered voters.
|
|||||
| Lofts at Fillmore Condo. Ass'n v. Reliance Commer. Constr., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-07-0416-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 19, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Builder of homes who was not the seller of the residences could nevertheless be sued by the buyers of the residences for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability, and the absence of contractual privity did not bar such a suit.
|
|||||
| State v. Rodriguez-Rosario, 1 CA-CR 07-0438,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 19, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted by a jury of three drug offenses, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant a mistrial once the court learned upon polling the individual jurors pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 23.4 that one of the jurors disagreed with the guilty verdict and stated that he "just went along with it."
|
|||||
| Steven H. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-08-0026-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 19, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Party seeking foster care placement of an Indian child under 25 U.S.C.S. ¿ 1912(e) was required to present expert testimony regarding the likelihood of future harm to the child; as long as the expert testimony addressed the issue that continued parental custody would likely result in emotional or physical harm, the statutory requirement was met.
|
|||||
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. |
