 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bolding v. Hantman, 2 CA-SA 2006-0085,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, December 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since Ariz. R. Crim. P. 10.2 did not apply only to judges assigned an entire case, a judge assigned to hear the issue of a proposed disqualification of a public defender's office in a criminal case could have been reassigned under Rule 10.2.
|
|||||
| Coconino County v. Antco, Inc., 1 CA-CV 05-0674,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, December 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County's complaint was based on its putative statutory powers that allegedly were valid notwithstanding various state statutes and regulations concerning sludge use and disposal, which called for an examination into the scope of the county's powers and state preemption, if any; trial court erred because it did not undertake such an analysis.
|
|||||
| Robbins v. Darrow, 1 CA-SA 06-0195,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, December 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Special action jurisdiction was accepted to interpret Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-1381. In underlying criminal matter, trial court erred in not granting petitioner's motions to preclude jury from hearing about prior DUI convictions because prior convictions were sentence enhancers, not elements of offense.
|
|||||
| State v. Galvez, No. 1 CA-CR 05-1229,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, December 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant failed to provide information regarding where she was serving a federal sentence, the particulars regarding the time she was serving, or a certificate of the custodial federal officer, she did not substantially comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-481.
|
|||||
| Margaret H. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 2 CA-JV 2005-0087,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, December 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in awarding summary judgment to Arizona Department of Economic Security and in terminating mother's parental rights under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(3) and (B)(8)(a) based on her mental illness or substance abuse and child's nine-month out-of-home placement where there remained factual issues that only the trier of fact could resolve.
|
|||||
| State v. Felix, 2 CA-CR 2005-0131,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, December 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not required to seek relief exclusively by way of special action on a claim that his double jeopardy rights had been violated when a trial court first accepted his guilty plea and then rejected it so that he was tried for second-degree murder because interlocutory appellate relief by special action was exceptional and not presumptive.
|
|||||
| Contreras v. Walgreens Drug Store #3837, 2 CA-CV 2006-0147,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, December 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to store in plaintiff's slip-and-fall negligence suit where fact that spills occurred twice a week, without any other evidence about location of spills or hazard they presented to customers, was not sufficient for reasonable jury to conclude that hazardous condition resulting from spills would regularly occur.
|
|||||
| State v. Campoy, 2 CA-SA 2006-0083,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, December 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a DUI action, testimony as to the defendant's performance on field sobriety tests (FSTs) could include language such as "impairment," "sobriety," "tests," "pass," "fail," "marginal," and "field sobriety test" because FST performance was relevant evidence of the defendant's impairment, though it was not a definitive indicator of impairment.
|
|||||
| City of Phoenix v. Harnish, 1 CA-CV 05-0023,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, December 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City of Phoenix, Arizona, could not condemn a landowner's property that was located outside the City's limits for the establishment of a nature preserve because such a grant of authority was not provided by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-511, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-284(A), Ariz. Const. art. 13, § 2, or the Phoenix, Ariz., City Charter ch. II, pt. I, § 2.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
