 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alta. Secs. Comm'n v. Ryckman, 1 CA-CV 00-0440,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, August 7, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Domestication of a Canadian judgment against a husband for expenses in a securities action could create a community obligation in Arizona even though wife was not joined in the Canadian action.
|
|||||
| In re Morgan, Comm. No. 01-0454,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 7, 2001, Decided , August 7, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Simat Corp. v. State Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 1 CA-CV 00-0334,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 7, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The statute was not unconstitutional because the state constitution did not create a right to subsidized abortions to which people were not entitled under the U.S. Constitution.
|
|||||
| Wozniak v. Galati, 1 CA-SA 01-0097,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, August 9, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was ample evidence from which the jury could conclude that defendant was driving while he had a drug or its metabolite in his body. The trial judge did not err in admitting the drug screen test.
|
|||||
| State v. Hernandez, 1 CA-CR 00-0763,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 14, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sale of narcotic drugs conviction was upheld because court did not err by refusing to instruct jury on defense of entrapment as defendant failed to show that idea of committing charged offense originated with officers or their agents.
|
|||||
| Andrews v. Willrich, 1 CA-SA 01-0072, 1 CA-SA 01-0109, (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 16, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Newly enacted Arizona statutes which vested exclusive authority in the prosecutor to determine whether juveniles in specified circumstances would be tried as adults were not unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| In re Alex M., 1 CA-JV 00-0219,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, August 16, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The juvenile court erred in vacating the reinstatement of the previously dismissed charges because when the juvenile court vacated the plea agreement, it triggered the clause that reinstated all of the previously dismissed charges.
|
|||||
| State Libertarian Party v. Schmeral, 1 CA-CV 00-0335,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, August 16, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Political parties' challenge to statutes governing selection of party leadership failed, as statutory requirements did not unconstitutionally burden association rights of political party members, but served important state interest.
|
|||||
| State v. Green, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-99-0569-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 17, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sexual abuse conviction was reversed because trial court abused its discretion by allowing two prior felony convictions more than 10 years old as impeachment evidence based only on centrality of credibility, and it was harmless error.
|
|||||
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. |
