 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Victoria K., 1 CA-JV 99-0218,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, October 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court did not have authority to amend, sua sponte, delinquency petition and adjudicate juvenile delinquent for providing false information to police, which was not a lesser-included offense of hindering prosecution by deception.
|
|||||
| Samaritan Health Sys. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 1 CA-CV 99-0522,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, October 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief. Hospitals failed to exhaust administrative remedies when claiming health care agency exceeded its statutory authority when it promulgated a reimbursement rule.
|
|||||
| US West Communs. v. City of Tucson, 1 CA-TX 99-0021,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, October 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tax court erroneously concluded that city's tax on telecommunication service providers who used city rights-of-way was invalid. Tax was a valid transaction privilege tax within the city's authority under state law.
|
|||||
| State v. Roark, 1 CA-CR 99-0962,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, October 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of motion to suppress was reversed to determine if there were parts of the warrant sufficiently specific and supported by probable cause to allow admission of any evidence seized under the warrant or under the plain view doctrine.
|
|||||
| State v. Welch, 1 CA-CR 99-0324,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, October 26, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellant could not have committed offense of manufacturing methamphetamine without possessing the chemicals and equipment to do so, appellant's convictions of both offenses violated his double jeopardy protections.
|
|||||
| Estate of Nelson v. Rice, 2 CA-CV 99-0085,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, October 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Terms of contract for the sale by estate of two paintings were not unconscionable, as transaction involved no negotiation, estate dictated the terms by naming a price for each painting, and buyer paid the asking prices.
|
|||||
| State v. Beasley, 1 CA-CR 99-0889,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, October 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's retroactive application of statute violated appellant juvenile's constitutional right to due process, and trial court erred in finding appellant a chronic felony offender.
|
|||||
| State v. Hummert, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-00-0259-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, November 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sulla v. Bonanne (In re Estate of Sulla), Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-00-0142-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, November 1, 2000, Decided , November 1, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
