 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bee v. Day, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-08-0199-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was judicial confidence that appellant's nomination petition forms for a justice of the peace position did not cause any elector to be confused about the candidate, office, or election for which they were signing, appellant's nomination petition forms substantially complied with the requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-314.
|
|||||
| State v. Wallace, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-05-0149-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 22, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Instruction allowed the jury to find gratuitous violence simply because a less violent means of murder was in some way "available." The instruction given did not require that defendant intend to inflict greater violence by forgoing the use of an alternative weapon. The instruction was erroneous and prejudicial. Three death sentences were vacated.
|
|||||
| Sanchez v. Tucson Orthopaedic Inst., P.C., 2 CA-CV 2007-0170,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, August 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in finding that plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action failed to establish the elements of res ipsa loquitor as to a surgeon and his employer because plaintiffs failed to show that the surgeon had exclusive or shared control of the injury-causing instrumentality.
|
|||||
| State v. Flythe, 2 CA-CR 2007-0157,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, August 25, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant waived the issue of severance under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 13.4 by failing to renew his severance motion at the time of trial; that his codefendant renewed his motion at trial did not serve to preserve the issue for defendant because each defendant was required to renew the motion in order to preserve the issue for appellate review.
|
|||||
| Carbajal v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 1 CA-IC 07-0054,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 26, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Services rendered by the claimant's wife were not generally considered medical treatment and were not the type of services typically rendered by a nurse. Therefore, under the facts of the case, the care rendered by the claimant's wife did not fall within the ambit of medical care contemplated by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1062(A).
|
|||||
| White v. State, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0496,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, August 26, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where police officers were shot and killed responding to a 9-1-1 call, the firefighter's rule barred their beneficiaries' negligence claims based on defendants' failure to treat the shooter prior to the shooting because the independent negligence exception did not apply since defendants' alleged negligence was not independent.
|
|||||
| Wyttenbach v. Wyttenbach (In re Estate of Wyttenbach), 1 CA-CV 07-0012,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, August 26, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lyon v. Fell, 2 CA-SA 2008-0015,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, August 27, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was entitled to relief from her conviction for driving while impaired in the slightest degree, where proper "duplicate" breathalyzer tests were not administered, and she was not provided with a sample for independent testing. The presumptive admission of the test results pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1323(A)(1) and (3) was precluded.
|
|||||
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. |
