 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kromko v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 1 CA-CV 04-0250,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, November 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although legislature was immune from suit for university appropriations, state board of regents was not immune as matter of law against action for declaratory or injunctive relief because authority to set tuition was not unlimited under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1626 and could violate Ariz. Const. art. 11, § 6 if increase was excessive or unreasonable.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Thomas v. Talamante, 1 CA-SA 06-0193,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, November 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State was improperly precluded from presenting evidence in case-in-chief of defendant's historical prior felony conviction for sexual offense because Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1423 established the crime of violent sexual assault and a historical prior felony conviction for a sexual offense was an element of the charged crime and not sentencing factor.
|
|||||
| In re Brittany Y., No. 1 CA-JV 06-0067,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, November 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant, a juvenile, was adjudicated guilty of shoplifting. Appellant violated probation; juvenile court entered disposition for home detention. Appellant was properly adjudicated delinquent for escape, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2502, because she was in custody on shoplifting charge when she removed monitoring device and left home.
|
|||||
| State v. Hansen, 1 CA-CR 05-0520,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, November 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.6 stayed restitution payments to victims pending appeal, but it did not stay defendant's obligation under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-804(D) to make restitution payments to the clerk of the court pending the appeal. These payments were to be held by the clerk of the court and distributed in accordance with the appeal resolution.
|
|||||
| State v. King, 2 CA-CR 2005-0256,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, November 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Records of defendant's prior convictions and his license suspension were non-testimonial under Crawford because they were public records that were akin to business records and were prepared and maintained regardless of their possible use in a criminal prosecution under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.16(b) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1346(A)(2).
|
|||||
| Grand v. Nacchio, 2 CA-CV 2006-0033,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, November 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court abused its discretion to the extent it required a proximate cause showing to obtain rescission under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(A)(1) as Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2082(E) did not apply to a rescission claim. However, a trust was required to show causation in order to prevail on a claim under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(A)(1).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
