 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Phelps, Supreme Court No. SB-00-0003-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 17, 2000, Decided , February 17, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent was disbarred and ordered to pay restitution to clients for failure to pursue his clients' claims, neglect of their affairs, and violations of the terms of a previous disciplinary order.
|
|||||
| In re Prince, Supreme Court No. SB-99-0091-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 17, 2000, Decided , February 17, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court ordered retroactive suspension of respondent's law license, respondent to pay costs, and respondent to comply with reinstatement conditions since hearing commission determined that it was proportionate to misconduct.
|
|||||
| Larsen v. Decker, 1 CA-CV 99-0414,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, February 17, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A plaintiff's social security administration records were properly excluded as unreliable, and certain medical records were properly excluded as unrelated, in a jury's determination of damages in a negligence action.
|
|||||
| State v. Maggio, 1 CA-CR 99-0406,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, February 17, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order revoking probation of convicted sex offender was affirmed because probation provisions forbidding him from having contact with or residing with children were not too vague to be enforceable.
|
|||||
| State v. Eagle, Supreme Court No. CR-98-0221-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 23, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions did not violate double jeopardy since each offense required proof of elements the other did not; lack of sexual assault as mitigating factor relevant for kidnap sentencing did not make it an element of kidnapping.
|
|||||
| State v. Gaffney, 2 CA-CR 99-0189,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, February 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statute's warnings did not have to be provided when drivers gave express consent to a test of blood, breath, or urine; police reading admonitions in implied consent affidavit did not alter or enlarge statute requirements.
|
|||||
| State v. Hurley, 1 CA-CR 98-0525,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, February 24, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reckless manslaughter jury instruction was appropriate and defendant failed to rebut presumption that judge was free from bias, so court affirmed defendant's reckless manslaughter conviction and sentence.
|
|||||
| In re Alton D., Supreme Court No. CV-99-0071-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 28, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Interest in reaching a prompt, final resolution of juvenile actions supported decision to require victims to file their restitution claims within a reasonable time period or be barred from seeking it from juvenile involved.
|
|||||
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. |
