 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hernandez v. Lynch, 1 CA-SA 07-0092,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arrestee was subject to provisions of Proposition 100, a recent amendment to Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 22(A), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2002(A)(2), and arrestee was denied bail following arrest. Proposition 100 was constitutional under Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses because it applied only to illegal aliens who remained in U.S. illegally.
|
|||||
| Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 1 CA-CV 06-0137,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The granting of a drug manufacturer's and doctor's motions to dismiss a child's action seeking damages for personal injuries was improper because the claims were not barred by the wrongful-life rule. The amended complaint also alleged that the instructions might not have been entitled to the protection of the learned-intermediary rule.
|
|||||
| Sun Valley Masonry, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 1 CA-IC 06-0092,,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, October 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to reopen a workers' compensation case based on an employee's continuing knee pain was properly granted under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1061(H) because it was the result of a gradual deterioration and not a subsequent event or injury; therefore, the compensable consequences doctrine did not apply.
|
|||||
| Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n, 1 CA-CV 06-0572,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, October 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to a homeowners association because there was no discrimination under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1492.02(A) in certain areas of a development containing a mailbox, a bulletin board, trash collection, and a greenbelt because they were not open to the public.
|
|||||
| State v. Rasul, 2 CA-CR 1995-0014,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, October 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant forfeited right to counsel under Sixth Amendment as he threatened two attorneys and his repeated demands for appointment of different counsel attempted to manipulate the system for delay. Defendant's prior offenses occurred on the same occasion for purposes of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(M); thus, sentencing enhancement was improper.
|
|||||
| Callen v. Rogers, 1 CA-CV 05-0792,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, October 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Coverage of emergency dental services was permissible under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396 et seq. Necessary dental services to the member were not covered as outpatient procedures under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2907(A)(2). Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System's denial of requested services was supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Ins. Agency, Inc., 2 CA-CV 2007-0020,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, October 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Keonjian v. Olcott, 2 CA-CV 2007-0047,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, October 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Fernandez, 1 CA-CR 05-1136,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, October 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 22.4, jury was not coerced when court ordered supplemental argument on premeditation based on the jury's question. Defendant's conduct was sufficiently focused on children to satisfy dangerous crimes against children sentencing enhancement, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604.01. Imposition of life sentence in Count Two was erroneous.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
