Court of Appeals of Arizona Court Cases

Search
  1. State v. Clark (1999)

    ¶ 1 Howard James Clark appeals from his convictions and sentences for one count of attempted first degree murder, a class two, nonrepetitive, dangerous felony, and one count of aggravated assault, a class three, nonrepetitive, dangerous felony. Counsel for Clark has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-CR 97-0673
  2. Jesus M. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic SEC. (2002)

    ¶ 1 In these consolidated appeals, the father of Selena M. and the mother of Selena and Blanca M. appeal from the juvenile court's order of November 21, 2001, denying the mother's motion to establish a permanent guardianship for the girls and granting the state's motion to terminate both parents' rights to the children. The juvenile court terminated the father's rights based on the length of a prison sentence he is currently serving for a burglary conviction, A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4). The court [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 2 CA-JV 2001-0095, 2 CA-JV 2001-0097
  3. State v. Bortz (1991)

    The significant issue in this case is whether Rule 32.9(a), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, requires a second motion for rehearing when the trial court grants a prior motion for rehearing on a petition for post-conviction relief, grants an evidentiary hearing as a result of the first motion for rehearing, but then dismisses the petition on grounds other than those raised in the original motion for rehearing.


    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-CR 89-1305-PR, 1 CA-CR 89-1555-PR
  4. Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc. (1983)

    In this appeal, we set forth guidelines for the filing of affidavits in support of requests for attorneys' fees where the parties have agreed by contract that the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable fees. Although the court normally disposes of such matters by unpublished orders, because of the growing number of fee applications, this opinion is necessary to give guidance to counsel in submitting fee requests. See Note, Statutory Attorney's Fees in Arizona: An Analysis of [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-CIV 5318
  5. Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc. (1998)

    ¶ 1 In this personal injury action, plaintiffs/appellants appeal from the trial court's entry of summary judgment for defendants/appellees and from its order denying plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment. We vacate the summary judgment for defendants and direct the trial court to enter partial summary judgment for plaintiffs on defendants' statutory immunity claim.


    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 2 CA-CV 97-0089
  6. United Cal. Bank v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO., ETC (1983)

    Martori, Meyer, Hendricks & Victor by Edwin F. Hendricks, Andrew D. Hurwitz, James E. Scarboro and Randall C. Nelson, Law Offices of Donald D. Meyers, Phoenix, for Nametco, HRP Hotel Co., Sam Shapiro, Barry Shapiro, Lawrence J. Shapiro, Michael Haskes, Ben Klimist and Joseph H. Filner.


    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-CIV 5135, 1 CA-CIV 5495
  7. United Bank of Arizona v. Allyn (1990)

    This appeal challenges a summary judgment entered by the superior court. The question presented is whether the court properly granted appellee's motion for summary judgment despite evidence presented with the motion which revealed on its face that summary judgment was not warranted. Appellants claim that the exhibits attached to the moving party's summary judgment motion revealed genuine issues of material fact which precluded summary judgment even though they did not file a response to the [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-CIV 88-474
  8. Baker v. Baker (1995)

    In this appeal from the trial court's order modifying his child support obligation, appellant challenges the court's calculation of his adjusted gross income and complains that the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were inadequate. Appellee cross-appeals, complaining that her award of attorney's fees was inadequate. We affirm.


    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 2 CA-CV 95-0120
  9. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez (1998)

    ¶ 1 Richard Gutierrez appeals contending that the trial court erroneously found that he had wasted a portion of the parties' community retirement account. He also appeals the award of lifetime spousal maintenance to his wife, Adelita Gutierrez, and the order that he pay her attorneys' fees. We affirm.


    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-CV 97-0420
  10. Matter of Maricopa County Juvenile Action (1994)

    The juvenile court terminated the mother's parental rights with respect to three of her minor children. The mother appeals, alleging that the juvenile court erred (1) in finding that termination of the parent-child relationship was in the children's best interest, (2) in finding that the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) made appropriate efforts to provide services to the mother, (3) in admitting the social study report into evidence, and (4) in allowing DES to amend the petition to [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-JV 94-0001
  11. State v. Donald (2000)

    ¶ 1 Victor Gene Donald petitions for review of the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that he rejected a plea agreement because his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly explain the relative merits of the plea offer in comparison with the potential sentence that he faced if convicted of the charges.[1] The trial court summarily dismissed Donald's petition, reasoning that his claim of ineffective assistance of [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-CR 97-0551-PR
  12. Martin v. Reinstein (1999)

    ¶ 1 In this special action, Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Arizona's Sexually Violent Persons Act, Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated ("A.R.S.") sections 36-3701 through -3716 (Supp.1998).[1] On October 14, 1998, we heard oral argument and issued an order accepting jurisdiction, denying relief, and indicating that an opinion would follow. This is that opinion.


    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-SA 98-0260
  13. City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. (2008)

    Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest by Joy Herr-Cardillo, Tucson, Attorney for Amici Curiae Scenic Arizona, Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Tucson, Luz Social Services, Amistades, and Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix.


    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 2 CA-CV 2007-0104
  14. State v. Ramirez (1980)

    Michael John Ramirez waived jury trial and was convicted by the trial court of two counts of rape while armed with a deadly weapon, two counts of lewd and lascivious acts, and one count of sodomy.[1] After entry of judgment of guilt, he was sentenced to terms of 7 1/2 to 20 years imprisonment for the armed rape counts, 4 1/2 to 5 years imprisonment for the lewd and lascivious act counts, and 7 1/2 to 20 years imprisonment for the sodomy count. All terms were to run concurrently. The [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-CR 4258-PR
  15. Polanco v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA (2007)

    ¶ 1 In this statutory special action, petitioner Mont Polanco contends the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in denying his petition to reopen his workers' compensation claim. The ALJ determined Polanco had failed to demonstrate "objective physical findings of [a] change in [Polanco's] condition" as required by A.R.S. § 23-1061(H). Polanco argues § 23-1061(H) is unconstitutional as applied to his case. Finding no error, we affirm the award.


    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 2 CA-IC 2006-0025
  16. Rancho Pescado v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. (1984)

    The main issues we determine in this appeal are whether the trial court erred by: 1) denying appellee's application to compel arbitration and, 2) reducing the jury's award of damages to appellant from $2,500,000 to $101,510, by denying the damages awarded for loss of future profits. The facts necessary to a resolution of this matter are as follows.


    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-CIV 5327
  17. State v. Wagstaff (1988)

    Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer III, Chief Counsel, Criminal Div., and Jack Roberts, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Collins, Maricopa Co. Atty. by H. Allen Gerhardt, Deputy Co. Atty., Phoenix, for respondent-appellee.


    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-CR 10190, 1 CA-CR 11902-PR
  18. State v. Also (1969)

    Defendant-appellant, Irvin Also, was convicted of failure to wear protective headgear while operating a motorcycle, as provided in A.R.S. § 28-964 and was fined $10. He appealed to the superior court which, trying the case de novo, affirmed the fine. Defendant now appeals to this court, challenging the statute's constitutionality.[1]


    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 1 CA-CR 213
  19. Fragoso v. Fell (2005)

    ¶ 1 In this special action proceeding, petitioner Rene Fragoso challenges the respondent judge's authority to impose a "cash-only" restriction on a pretrial release bond. In an earlier order, we accepted jurisdiction but denied relief, with a decision to follow. This is that decision. We hold that Arizona law, contrary to Fragoso's argument, does not prohibit a cash-only condition on bail and, therefore, that the respondent judge did not exceed his legal authority in imposing that condition on [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 2 CA-SA 2005-0001
  20. FLYING DIAMOND AIRPACK, LLC v. Meienberg (2007)

    ¶ 1 Appellant Jeffrey Meienberg appeals from an order issuing a mandatory injunction[1] requiring him to reduce the height of a hangar he had built. He argues the trial court erred by concluding Meienberg's violation of a restrictive covenant was intentional, failing to apply the doctrine of relative hardships, and failing to re-open the case for additional evidence regarding the hardship Meienberg would incur in complying with the injunction. He also argues that appellee Flying Diamond [...]

    Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Docket: 2 CA-CV 2006-0092

1 of 654 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5