 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Harris v. State, 1 CA-CV 99-0484,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, September 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cockfighting statutes were neither vague nor overbroad and they did not violate the Arizona Constitution; therefore the trial court abused its discretion in declaring them unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| Wiggs v. City of Phoenix, Supreme Court No. CV-99-0401-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 5, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant had a non-delegable duty and was liable for the negligence of his independent contractor, therefore appellee was entitled to the requested jury instruction and this error deprived appellee of a fair trial.
|
|||||
| Aranda v. Industrial Comm'n, Supreme Court No. CV-99-0303-PR CONSOLIDATED WITH Supreme Court No. CV-99-0405-T/AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 12, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation disability benefits could not be suspended following incarceration of claimants, because suspension statute was not applicable where benefit awards and offenses occurred prior to statute's enactment.
|
|||||
| State v. Wilkinson, 1 CA-SA 00-0054,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, September 12, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowners' economic loss was remote, indirect, or consequential result of defendant's unlicensed contracting, and not within scope of criminal restitution, and homeowners could have sought to recover their loss through civil causes of action.
|
|||||
| Coulter v. Industrial Comm'n, 1 CA-IC 97-0172,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, September 14, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: With respect to claimant's petition to reopen claim against employer and carrier, Commission should have considered whether admission of report of treating doctor, who died prior to hearing, would have been consistent with substantial justice.
|
|||||
| In re Roberson, Supreme Court No. SB-00-0074-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 14, 2000, Decided , September 14, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was censored and placed on probation when he failed to communicate or advise a client of the status of his case following his appointment to represent the client in a post conviction relief matter.
|
|||||
| Kelly v. Kelly, Supreme Court No. CV-98-0090-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 14, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband's pension benefits that were in lieu of social security benefits were exempt from distribution as community property following divorce, just as wife's social security benefits were separate property.
|
|||||
| State v. Alawy, 1 CA-CR 99-0882,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, September 14, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant violated city zoning code by using industrially zoned land for residential purpose, as code clearly conveyed activity that was prohibited, was necessary to ensure public safety, and was not vague or overbroad.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. Gavette (In re Estate of Shumway), Supreme Court No. CV-99-0391-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 15, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Beneficiary had probable cause for will contest given presumption of undue influence and circumstances surrounding drafting and execution of will; therefore, will's penalty clause was unenforceable by statute.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., Supreme Court No. CV-99-0370-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 15, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an insurer's policy provisions could not override an Arizona underinsured motorist statute; the insurer's policy exclusion was read solely to limit duplication of recovery, as opposed to completely eliminating underinsured coverage.
|
|||||
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. |
