 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Pandeli, Supreme Court No. CR 98-0376-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 17, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's confession was inadmissible under the statement against interest exception to the hearsay rule because he was available to testify and he could not then seek to introduce his statement yet at the same time avoid cross-examination.
|
|||||
| State v. Tschilar, 1 CA-CR 00-0495,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, July 17, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of multiple counts of kidnapping and aggravated assault, the finding that his kidnapping victims were voluntarily released unharmed was not a factual decision for the jury.
|
|||||
| UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Craig, Supreme Court No. CV-00-0184-CQ,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 17, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where husband and wife died at same time in car accident, and husband's insurance policies named wife as beneficiary, applicable rule of survival for designated beneficiary of policy indicated proceeds were to be paid to husband's estate.
|
|||||
| Banales v. Smith, 2 CA-CV 00-0169,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, July 19, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the father failed to object in the trial court to the lack of a finding as to which parent would facilitate continuing contact, the father waived that issue on appeal and the trial court's custody order was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Richards v. Steingard, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-01-0131-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 23, 2001, Decided , July 23, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Sodikoff, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-01-0133-R,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 25, 2001, Decided , July 25, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suspended attorney's motion verifying he was qualified for reinstatement to active bar membership was granted.
|
|||||
| Fisher v. City of Apache Junction, 2 CA-CV 00-0173,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, July 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where resident filed a petition for writ of mandamus one day late, the petition was still timely filed because the last day for filing the petition fell on a Sunday.
|
|||||
| Horton v. Mitchell, 1 CA-CV 00-0500,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, July 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred by concluding that the housing restrictions did not preclude the construction of a proposed roadway; thus it was ordered to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the requested injunctive relief.
|
|||||
| State v. Espinosa, 2 CA-CR 98-0131, 2 CA-CR 99-0444-PR (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, July 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant did not object before trial to the withdrawal of the plea agreement by the prosecutor, his post-conviction claim for relief should have been 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. |
