 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Rural Metro Corp. v. Indus. Comm'n, 2 CA-IC 99-0003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, December 8, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the employee returned to work against her physician's advice because of financial pressures, the employee's shoulder reinjury was compensable because it was both industrially related and not purposely self-inflicted.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. McDonald, 1 CA-CV 99-0178,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, December 9, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellee attorney and client who told legislators about appellants to defeat legislation were not immunized by judicial privilege for defamation because legislative recipients had no relationship to dismissed proceedings.
|
|||||
| Vance-Koepnick v. Koepnick, 1 CA-CV 98-0644,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, December 9, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant husband's liability for debts affirmed, since community was not bound by guaranty not signed by both spouses, and he did not argue how much of the debt for legal fees related to work done for him personally.
|
|||||
| In re Flournoy, Arizona Supreme Court No. JC-99-0002.,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, December 16, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent judge's constitutional due process rights were not violated when the commission combined investigatory and adjudicatory functions during a disciplinary action that led to suspension for judicial misconduct.
|
|||||
| Cronin v. Sheldon, Supreme Court No. CV-98-0495-SA and Supreme Court No. CV-08-0580-SA (Consolidated),
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, December 17, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The unconstitutional preamble to the Employment Protection Act (EPA) did not affect statutory text, and the EPA's exclusive remedies provision restricting tort claims under the Arizona Civil Rights Act did not violate the Arizona constitution.
|
|||||
| Randolph v. Groscost, Supreme Court No. CV-99-0054-SA,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, December 17, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because per diem reimbursement was not a salary, Arizona's Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers lacked authority to recommend changes in legislative per diem rate.
|
|||||
| Calik v. Kongable, Supreme Court No. CV-98-0389-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, December 20, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State statutory law prohibited respondent from imposing jail time on petitioner as a condition of probation for the first time offense of possession of a controlled substance.
|
|||||
| Carr v. Industrial Comm'n, 1 CA-IC 99-0002,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, December 21, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner lived a long distance from treatment and denial of travel reimbursement denied him necessary medical treatment; expense payment was not related to daily expenses, payments were excluded from average monthly wage.
|
|||||
| Anderson v. Nissei Asb Mach. Co., 1 CA-CV 98-0304, 1 CA-CV 98-0339 (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, December 23, 1999, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court's judgment as a matter of law in defendant's favor was reversed as the jury verdict for plaintiff was supported by evidence and the trial court inappropriately substituted its decision for that of the jury.
|
|||||
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. |
