David damron arrest orange county california

Tucson Lot 4 amended its complaint to seek eviction. Tucson Lot 4 appealed.

Orange County, Florida mayoral election - Wikipedia

Sunquest acknowledged appealability of the injunction, but challenged the jurisdiction for the appeal from denial of the eviction order which lacked finality language pursuant to Ariz. The court of appeals disposed of that challenged, noting both that there was no analog to rule 54 b in the Arizona Rules of Procedure for Eviction Actions and that appeals from forcible detainer actions were authorized by Ariz. With respect to the preliminary injunction, the court of appeals held that the trial court lacked authority to grant it because it deprived Tucson Lot 4 of its statutory right to a forcible detainer proceeding.

Since the trial court had denied the eviction order only because of the injunction, that ruling was vacated and remanded for the superior court to consider that eviction request on the merits. Mother and Father were married in , had three children, and a petition for divorce was filed in Prior to the decree, Father suffered a serious medical event and was unable to work in his previous occupation.

Father was supporting himself using funds borrowed from a relative by the time of the decree. With respect to child support, the court of appeals held there was no error. Because Father received the loan proceeds as a source for living and personal expenses, the court of appeals held that the superior court was entitled to treat those funds as available for child support. The appellate court disagreed with the award of spousal maintenance, however. The support award was affirmed and the maintenance award vacated. Ramsey contracted with Edens for home construction.

Ramsey filed a complaint against Edens for damages for deficiencies in performance. The Registrar moved to dismiss with respect to eligibility for compensation from the Fund, arguing Ramsey had not suffered any actual damages pursuant to Ariz. The Registrar appealed. The court of appeals disagreed with the Registrar that an application for recovery from the Fund had to meet the summary judgment standards for evidence of Ariz. Since Ramsey was able to complete the original construction contract with another contractor for less than the balance still owed to Edens, Ramsey was not entitled to any recovery from the Fund.

The superior court order was vacated. Kimberly and Suzan were married in California in , became the parents of a child via artificial insemination of Kimberly, and relocated to Arizona where the child was born in In , Kimberly separated from Suzan, taking the child with her and denying contact to Suzan.

Suzan filed a dissolution petition and sought temporary orders to include parenting time. Kimberly moved for a determination whether the dissolution was with or without children, asserting a presumption of paternity pursuant to Ariz. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v.

Hodges, S. Kimberly filed a petition for special action to challenge that ruling. The court of appeals accepted jurisdiction, but denied relief, upholding the trial court ruling.


Kimberly acknowledged that the couple had agreed to become parents via artificial insemination and have equal parenting rights. Her argument was that Suzan was not a parent as defined in Ariz. The court of appeals noted that Ariz. The statute also included as a legal parent a person whose paternity was established pursuant to Ariz. Mindful of our obligation to find statutes constitutional if possible. The court also acknowledged the rebuttal provision in Ariz. Jade father and Lorraine mother are the divorced parents of AK age 8.

Lorraine remarried since the divorce and was living with her military husband in another state. During a time when AK was with Jade, she was unsupervised, went outside to play, found and ate some wild mushrooms, became ill, and ended up being treated at a hospital.

Jade appealed.

Former Wasserman Schultz IT staffer arrested on charges of bank fraud

The court of appeals reversed. The court of appeals stated that the focus is solely upon the parent when evaluating grounds for termination of parental rights and that a heightened standard of proof applied in recognition of the severe consequence of any error in termination. With respect to that supervision, no one had questioned Jade as to why he thought she was playing outside under the supervision of some other adult, as he suggested.

The court of appeals held that to be too speculative to support the heightened standard of proof. The termination based upon the single act of neglect was reversed. Horcos was a real estate agent associated with MartinezRusso, a real estate broker. While returning from a real estate sales appointment, Horcos crossed the center line and collided with another vehicle driven by Santorii. Both drivers died. MartinezRusso argued that Horcos was an independent contractor for which it was not responsible.

Much more than documents.

The broker is required to review all sales transactions of the salesperson and to maintain all records of such transactions. The broker is required to exercise reasonable supervision of the salesperson, as well. Notwithstanding those statutory requirements, upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the superior court granted the motion of MartinezRusso that Horcos was an independent contractor and not an employee. As an independent contractor, MartinezRusso was not vicariously liable for any negligence of Horcos.

Santorii appealed. The court of appeals also did not find that statutory obligation to supervise the salesperson to make the broker responsible as an employer.

Edit This Favorite

Despite working exclusively for MartinezRusso over a six-year period, Horcos was a licensed professional who had nearly complete discretion in the time, manner, and means in which he traveled to meet clients. Horcos was not required to keep specific hours, attend sales meetings, or meet any sales quotas, and although MartinezRusso provided optional office space, administrative services, sales leads, and training, Horcos was charged a monthly fee for these services.

There is no dispute that Horcos chose the territory where he worked, created his own advertisements, prospected for clients, drove his own car, worked from his home office, worked purely for commission, and set up his own appointments. Moran was charged with murder and aggravated assault with respect to two priests.

Before ordering disclosure, the reporter is also entitled to controvert the affidavit or otherwise move to quash the subpoena. The appellate court analyzed various arguments posed by PNI with respect to First Amendment protections and the requirements of the Media Shield Law, but ultimately focused on the requirement to demonstrate a sufficiently compelling need for the information. The appellate court disagree with the superior court and held that Moran had not demonstrated an inability to obtain the information from other sources.

There had been no showing that the information sought was not duplicated in the already published articles, the police interview with Father Terra, and his call. Terra or that, having interviewed Fr. Terra, he still lacks an alternative means of obtaining the information.

The disclosure order was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Subsequently, First Arizona together with another lender made a new loan to Troon, part of which was used to pay off the earlier loan. The deed of trust to First Arizona together with another lender for that loan was subsequent to the recording of the Markham lien. First Arizona disagreed and stated its intention to proceed with the sale and that it would not recognize the priority of the Markham lien. Markham filed a lien foreclosure action.

In the Markham foreclosure action, First Arizona obtained summary judgment that its later loan was equitably subrogated to the prior loan, therefore held a first priority, and extinguished the Markham lien. Markham appealed. The court of appeals agreed that First Arizona was equitably subrogated to the prior deed of trust when the second loan was used in part to pay off the prior loan. Its bid exceeded its priority, so Markham should have received the excess portion.