 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cervantes v. Cates, 1 CA-SA 03-0157,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, September 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite the fact that certain videotapes and pictures depicted child pornography, the State was required to copy the materials for defendant to aid in the preparation of his defense.
|
|||||
| Raney v. Lindberg, 1 CA-SA 02-0270,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, September 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Declining to follow Ossana, Court of Appeals of Arizona, Department B, held offense of solicitation of possession of dangerous drug constituted previous conviction pursuant to Proposition 200 regarding mandatory probation for prior drug convictions.
|
|||||
| Raye v. Jones, 1 CA-SA 03-0001,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, September 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Underage drinking and driving, was not a jury-eligible offense, and the license suspension that accompanied a conviction for underage drinking and driving did not constitute a grave consequence sufficient to have supported jury eligibility.
|
|||||
| State v. Givens, 2 CA-CR 2001-0533,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, September 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly sentenced defendant as a violent offender to terms of imprisonment for drug possession and paraphernalia charges, where the violent offense was charged in the same indictment as the drug offense and defendant was found guilty.
|
|||||
| Tanque Verde Unified Sch. Dist. No. 13 v. Bernini, 2 CA-SA 2003-0067,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, September 23, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a school district's board violated the open meetings law by improperly conducting its site selection process for a new school in executive sessions, the board's subsequent ratification of its selection by public meeting was proper.
|
|||||
| State v. Nordstrom, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-98-0278-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 24, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge erred in sentencing defendant to death under unconstitutional procedures where jury might have weighed mitigating evidence differently than did the trial judge, which could affect whether circumstances called for leniency.
|
|||||
| State v. Sansing, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-99-0438-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 24, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On remand from the United States Supreme Court, a harmless error standard was used to affirm a trial judge's imposition of a death sentence under Arizona's aggravating factors; a jury would have found the helpless victim's murder was heinous.
|
|||||
| Martinets v. Pinto (In re Herbst), 1 CA-CV 02-0557,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, September 25, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: One grantor of a trust did not amend the trust document through his will to remove two beneficiaries, as the trust document required the signature of all grantors to effect an amendment, and the other grantor had not signed the will.
|
|||||
| Mealey v. Arndt, 1 CA-CV 02-0424,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, September 30, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neighbors presented insufficient evidence that clear, certain, visible boundary existed to which neighbors and landowners acquiesced, such that the neighbors should not have been granted judgment based on the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence.
|
|||||
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. |
