Arizona car insurance
Arizona Court of Appeals - Division Two Recent Decisions
Arizona Court of Appeals - Division Two Recent Opinions
- JOHN M. v. ADES, SHANNON M. - 2 CA-JV 2007-0029 - 12/21/2007
Opinion - Issues Summary: - MARIA HENNING v. MONTECINI HOSPITALITY, ET AL. - 2 CA-CV 2007-0109 - 12/20/2007
Opinion - Issues Summary: Does the seller of a bar have a continuing duty of care in dispensing alcohol at that bar when the sale has not closed but the seller has contractually relinquished the right to control, operate, and profit from the bar to the buyer and when the bar is serving alcohol pursuant to the new operator’s liquor license?Can a seller of a bar be held liable for the negligent training of bar employees when the employees’ allegedly negligent conduct occurs after the seller no longer employs them, when they are employed by the purchaser and new operator of the bar? - STEVEN H. SIMON v. SAFEWAY, INC. - 2 CA-CV 2007-0055 - 12/20/2007
Opinion - Issues Summary: 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request to allow additional discovery—functionally a motion under Rule 56(f), Ariz. R. Civ. P.—after finding plaintiff had failed to demonstrate the discovery sought was reasonably likely to yield material evidence?2) Does a business owner’s nondelegable duty to maintain safe premises encompass the actions of an independent contractor it hires to perform security services on its premises, thus exposing the business owner to vicarious liability? - STATE OF ARIZONA v. HIGINIO AGUILAR - 2 CA-CR 2006-0226 - 12/19/2007
Opinion - Issues Summary: Whether the state’s request to use an undisclosed scientific report and to have an undisclosed witness testify during Aguilar’s first trial created manifest necessity requiring a mistrial, so that double jeopardy did not bar his retrial. - STATE OF ARIZONA v. ENIS JOHN CHERAMIE, III - 2 CA-CR 2006-0319 - 11/30/2007
Opinion - Issues Summary: Did the trial court err in finding possession of a dangerous drug is a lesser-included offense of transportation of a dangerous drug for sale?Was the defendant’s due process right to notice of the charges against him under the Arizona and United States Constitutions violated when the court allowed the amendment of his indictment during trial from transportation of a dangerous drug for sale to possession of a dangerous drug? - DIANA H. v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY - 2 CA-SA 2007-0085 - 11/21/2007
Opinion - Issues Summary: Whether a parent whose child has been adjudicated dependent pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-841 through 8-844 has a residual parental right pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-531(5)(c) to exempt the child from immunization for religious reasons. - MCCLOUD v. STATE OF ARIZONA; DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY; and KIMBRO - 2 CA-CV 2007-0006 - 11/09/2007
Opinion - Issues Summary: Plaintiff was injured when a state employee’s vehicle collided with hers, and the trial court granted the state’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, filed after the one-year limitations period applicable to suits against the state had expired. 1. Did the trial court err by declining to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to the complaint when the plaintiff’s attorney suffered various illnesses and family misfortunes, as did his backup attorney? 2. Did the trial court err by dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint against the state employee in his individual, private capacity, to which the two-year limitations period applied? - STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAMES PRENTISS COGHILL - 2 CA-CR 2006-0215 - 11/01/2007
Opinion - Issues Summary: 1. Did the trial court commit reversible error in admitting evidence that defendant possessed adult pornography based on its finding the evidence was relevant under Rule 404(b), Ariz. R. Evid., to show the defendant’s intent, knowledge, and opportunity to download child pornography?2. Did the trial court err in allowing the jury to view portions of the child pornography found in defendant’s residence despite his offer to stipulate that the material was child pornography?3. Did the trial court violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to retain counsel of his choice when it denied the application of defendant’s father, an Illinois attorney, to appear pro hac vice?4. To be guilty of a dangerous crime against children under A.R.S. § 13-604.01, must a defendant have known that the children depicted in child pornography the defendant possessed were under the age of fifteen?5. Did the trial court violate Rule 15 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and commit fundamental error by allowing the state, in making its pretrial disclosure, to provide Coghill with copies of his computer hard drives rather than producing the original hard drives? - JEFFREY ODOM v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA - 2 CA-CV 2007-0036 - 10/29/2007
Opinion - Issues Summary: When Farmers’ insured loaned his rental car to a third party, who then caused a one-car accident in which a passenger was injured, was the third party/driver covered for the accident under the insured’s personal automobile insurance policy with Farmers?
