 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Keenen v. Biles, 1 CA-CV 00-0286,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, January 2, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After breach of lease, landlord could properly file a special detainer action to obtain rent and costs when tenants returned property to the possession of landlord after the action was filed, but prior to the award of the judgment.
|
|||||
| Conf. Res. Specialists of Ariz. v. Dep't of Econ. Sec. Appeals Bd., 1 CA-TX 00-0004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, January 4, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's succession to non-party's hotel employees did not mean succession to its organization, trade, or business or a distinct and severable portion of it; thus, appellant was not entitled to its lower unemployment insurance tax rate.
|
|||||
| State v. Purcell, 1 CA-CR 99-0781,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, January 4, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's peremptory strike of Roman Catholic was permissible where State provided neutral explanation independent of juror's religion, but weapons sentence was in error absent the required finding of dangerousness.
|
|||||
| In re Hanson, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-00-0102-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, January 5, 2001, Dated , January 5, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was publicly censured for working for non-lawyer owned business that engaged in illegal soliciting of clients and unauthorized practice of law; presumptive sanction of suspension was not imposed due to several mitigating factors.
|
|||||
| Korte v. Bayless, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-00-0308-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, January 10, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in ruling for plaintiff voters because citizens committee's ballot initiative concerning public lands management did not violate state's constitution by encompassing more than a single subject.
|
|||||
| Regner v. Bayless, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-00-0302-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, January 10, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Proposition 108, regarding telecommunications companies, involved two provisions, but did not violate the single-subject requirement of the Arizona Constitution. Thus, Proposition 108 remained on the ballot.
|
|||||
| Taxpayer Protection Alliance v. Arizonans Against Unfair Tax Schemes, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-00-0300-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, January 10, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A citizen-proposed initiative was properly removed from the ballot because it did not conform to the state's constitutional single-subject requirement.
|
|||||
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. |
