 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Corbett v. Manorcare of Am. Inc., 2 CA-CV 2005-0160,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, November 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Personal representative's claim under the Adult Protective Services Act was not barred by collateral estoppel because the representative did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of an amended statute of limitations under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 46-455 and 12-505(C) in light of a recent state supreme court case construing § 12-505.
|
|||||
| In re Odneal, Supreme Court No. SB-06-0146-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, November 29, 2006, Decided , November 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Turley v. Ethington, 2 CA-CV 2006-0070,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, November 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' claims were not barred by the statute of frauds because the statute of frauds did not apply to the remedy of constructive trusts. Moreover, a breach of fiduciary duty took the parties' agreement outside the statute. By overruling prior case law, the transfer of land from one partner to another could be outside the statute of frauds.
|
|||||
| Volunteer Ctr. of S. Ariz. v. Staples, 2 CA-CV 2006-0084,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, November 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where nonprofit corporation met requirements of 26 U.S.C.S. § 501(c) and leased part of its property to another nonprofit corporation, the owner was entitled to have its entire property exempt from real property taxes under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-11107, 42-1121 because Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-11154, 42-11155 allowed corporation to retain exemption.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Cruikshank, 2 CA-SA 2006-0067, 2 CA-SA 2006-0078 (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, November 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The seven-year statute of limitations under former Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107(B) had expired by the time police recovered a DNA match to accused persons. Thus, trial courts abused their discretion in failing to dismiss indictments charging the accuseds of kidnapping, sexual assault, and sexual abuse.
|
|||||
| Chilton v. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, Inc., 2 CA-CV 2005-0115,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, December 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nonprofit group and it members were properly found liable for defaming a rancher and his company because constitutional petition privilege claims were waived by the failure to raise them until after trial by an Ariz. R. Civ. P. 50 motion and the jury was instructed on substantial truth defense and found the statements were not substantially true.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Mitchell, 2 CA-SA 2006-0075,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, December 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce matter in which wife appealed a commissioner's decree, and the matter was remanded, wife was entitled to exercise wife's previously unused right to request a change of judge, pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 42, because commissioner would be required to determine anew property ownership, which was de novo redetermination of remanded issues.
|
|||||
| Lohmeier v. Hammer, 1 CA-CV 05-0764,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, December 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a husband and his wife's personal injury and loss of consortium action against a driver, whose vehicle rear-ended the husband's vehicle, a biomechanical expert's testimony was admissible under Ariz. R. Evid. 702, 704 and not subject to a Frye hearing when the testimony was based on his own experience and research.
|
|||||
| Tyman v. Hintz Concrete, Inc., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-06-0006-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, December 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Allegedly injured party filed amended complaint upon learning construction site was responsibility of construction company, concrete company, and church. Amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint for statute of limitations purposes under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2) because mistake was not shown. Rule's mistake requirement survived.
|
|||||
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. |
