 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee, 2 CA-SA 99-0124,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' could not peremptorily challenge a judge upon remand because they had already exercised that right before appeal and remand.
|
|||||
| Foster v. Irwin, Supreme Court No. CV-99-0002-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prison sentence was vacated because a person convicted of possession of drugs for personal use was eligible for probation, even if he had a prior non-violent, non-drug-related felony conviction.
|
|||||
| Shaffer v. Arizona State Liquor Bd., 1 CA-CV 99-0332,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial de novo was not required as evidence clearly showed bar's employees failed to take reasonable steps to protect patron's safety. Revocation of liquor license was neither excessive nor shocking to sense of fairness.
|
|||||
| State v. Valle, 1 CA-CR 98-1024,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Marijuana and rolling papers discovered during a "pat down" exceeded the scope permitted, as defendant had no weapon on his person, and the police had no other legitimate basis for conducting the warrantless search.
|
|||||
| Yauch v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 2 CA-CV 99-0086,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, February 29, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of employee for work related injuries reversed; court concluded that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of certain post-accident conduct by employer.
|
|||||
| Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. v. Fegen (In re Estate of Fogleman), 1 CA-CV 98-0610,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, March 2, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorneys and law firm acting as estate's personal representative and personal representative's attorneys did not violate rules of professional conduct nor act in bad faith, but breached fiduciary duty to estate's successors.
|
|||||
| State v. Gilfillan, 1 CA-CR 99-0069,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 2, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arizona Rape Shield Law did not unconstitutionally deprive defendant of rights to due process, to present defense, and to confront witnesses, or intrude upon judiciary's rule-making power or violate separation of powers.
|
|||||
| Zilisch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Supreme Court No. CV-98-0535-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 3, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer that delayed payment and offered unreasonably low settlement in the face of evidence of severe injury did not act in good faith, and breached fiduciary duties to its insured.
|
|||||
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. |
