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!
   State Courts - Arizona - December 8 - December 29, 2005
  
State ex rel. Thomas v. Granville, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-05-0155-PR, SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, December 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Trial court did not err in refusing to give requested jury instruction from State, which placed an affirmative burden on a capital defendant to show mitigation was sufficiently substantial to impose leniency, because Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 13-703(E) permitted a jury to return a life verdict even if defendant showed nothing in mitigation.

Search Cases for Free
  
Maher v. Urman, 2 CA-CV 2005-0039, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, December 20, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: In a legal malpractice suit, trial court did not err in dismissing client's suit due to untimely service of lawyers and law firm because, although the trial court could have extended time for service under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4(i), trial court determined that good cause did not exist; client's self-representation did not satisfy good cause.

Search Cases for Free
  
State v. Burdick, 2 CA-CR 2004-0043, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, December 21, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant's consecutive sentences in a disorderly conduct case did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because defendant was subject to multiple punishments for his single act of disorderly conduct by recklessly handling, displaying, or discharging a firearm because that act constituted disorderly conduct committed against multiple persons.

Search Cases for Free
  
Austin v. CrystalTech Web Hosting, 1 CA-CV 04-0823, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, December 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: The Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.S. ? 230, granted the Internet web hosting company immunity from the businessman's defamation claims for publishing or distributing defamatory content provided by another, and the trial court properly declined to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Indonesian residents.

Search Cases for Free
  
Stop Exploiting Taxpayers v. Jones, 1 CA-CV 04-0819, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, December 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Municipal ordinances setting rates charged for city-owned utility services were administrative acts and, therefore, were not subject to referendum for voter approval at the next city election, and in setting utility rates, the city had to act in accordance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. ?? 9-521 to -540.

Search Cases for Free
  
Vales v. Kings Hill Condo. Ass'n, 1 CA-CV 04-0816, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, December 22, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Trial court erred when it found that condominium unit owner's complaint was time-barred pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 33-1227(B). Because amendment was not subject to either ? 33-1227(A)'s or ? 33-1227(D)'s voting percentage provisions but was passed pursuant to declaration's majority-vote provision, one-year limitations period was inapplicable.

Search Cases for Free
  
Veronica T. v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 CA-JV 05-0038, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, December 27, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: An order terminating a mother's parental rights to her children was upheld because the trial court did not err when it held two permanency hearings. Because the "reasonable efforts" standard of Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 8-829(A)(3) (Supp. 2005) was timely met, the statute permitted a subsequent permanency hearing.

Search Cases for Free
  
State v. Hollenback, 2 CA-CR 2004-0139, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, December 29, 2005, Filed
View this case - free  

Overview: Victim, who was eight at the time of sexual offenses, testified that defendant had asked him repeatedly on multiple occasions to participate in oral sex. Thus, substantial evidence supported charge of luring a minor for sexual exploitation under Ariz. Rev. Stat. ? 13-3554, and trial court did not err in denying a motion for a judgment of acquittal.

Search Cases for Free
  
Back to Top
  


Copyright© 2011 LexisNexis®, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.