 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kurti v. Maricopa County, 1 CA-CV 01-0055,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, September 20, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statutes restricting access by indigents qualified aliens to non-emergency health care services in Arizona as a whole and in Maricopa County violated equal protection, as they were more restrictive than federal statutes.
|
|||||
| State v. Hensley, 1 CA-CR 00-0508,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, September 20, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was eligible for probation under Proposition 200 because the State failed to allege and prove the prior violent convictions, but the trial court erred in terminating defendant's probation, rather than imposing additional terms.
|
|||||
| Urs v. Maricopa County Atty's Office, 1 CA-CV 01-0144,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, September 20, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reckless driving was a jury-eligible offense at common law, and defendant's right to a jury trial was thus guaranteed by the Arizona Constitution.
|
|||||
| Young v. Johnson, 1 CA-CV 00-0159,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, September 20, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a juror without a sound basis deprived defendant of the essential right to a jury trial. As it was impossible to determine the extent of any prejudice to defendant, the appellate court had to presume prejudice.
|
|||||
| Mix v. Villarreal, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-01-0284-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, September 24, 2001, Decided , September 24, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 1 CA-CV 00-0242,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, September 25, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City ordinance which forbade any alteration of nonconforming property was in conflict with Arizona's zoning laws. The offending section of the ordinance was severed, and the billboard improvements were lawful.
|
|||||
| In re 1996 Nissan Sentra, 2 CA-CV 00-0162,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, September 25, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting car owner's cross-motion for summary judgment in a civil in rem forfeiture action against owner's car; fact that the state did not charge owner under the racketeering law was of no consequence.
|
|||||
| State v. Boyd, 1 CA-CR 00-0761,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, September 25, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's due process right was violated and his conviction, for having a dangerous drug or its metabolite in his body, was reversed where he did not have notice that legal substance he had taken metabolized into statutorily proscribed one.
|
|||||
| State v. Bass, 2 CA-CR 00-0237,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, September 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant engaged in sexually explicit internet conversations and planned to meet with detective who he thought was 13 year-old girl, was sufficient to sustain his conviction of conspiracy to commit sexual conduct with a minor.
|
|||||
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. |
