 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-07-0114-CQ,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, November 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Creditor could properly file a lis pendens under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1191(A) when filing an action under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-1001 to 44-1010 to void a debtor's allegedly fraudulent transfer of real property because a UFTA action was an action "affecting title to real property."
|
|||||
| State v. Coghill, 2 CA-CR 2006-0215,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, November 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a child pornography case, a court erred by admitting evidence under Ariz. R. Evid. 404(b) that defendant downloaded and saved adult pornography because that evidence had no special relevance to show knowledge, opportunity, or intent, nor was it admissible to show that defendant had a propensity to download child pornography.
|
|||||
| State v. Rojers, 1 CA-CR 06-0445,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, November 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in concluding that evidence discovered by a police officer in defendant's car was admissible under the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment because the evidence would inevitably have been discovered during a valid inventory search that would have taken place after the car was impounded.
|
|||||
| State v. Teagle, 1 CA-CR 06-0590,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, November 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A public safety officer did not act unreasonably by detaining defendant for one hour and forty minutes pending the arrival of a drug-detection dog. The nearest available canine unit, which was approximately 60 miles away, arrived 68 minutes after being called to the scene.
|
|||||
| Gravel Res. of Ariz. v. Hills, No. 1 CA-CV 06-0620,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, November 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re MH 2006-002044 A, 1 CA-MH 06-0034,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, November 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order requiring appellant to undergo a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment for a mental health condition was upheld where Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-527(A) (2003) did not require the trial court to dismiss the petition for court-ordered evaluation on the ground that it was not filed within 24 hours of taking appellant into custody.
|
|||||
| Lofts at Fillmore Condo. Ass'n v. Reliance Commer. Constr., Inc., 1 CA-CV 06-0257,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, November 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Palmer v. Palmer, 1 CA-CV 06-0674,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, November 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
