 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Barragan, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0039-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was censured and placed on probation for two years, where client's medical malpractice action was dismissed, as he had not conducted discovery, and same client's personal injury claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| In re Coker, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0045-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was censured where, relying solely on information provided by client, he filed pleading alleging that judge, guardian ad litem, and previous trial attorney were paid off by opposing counsel, allowing them to satisfy their mortgages.
|
|||||
| In re Estrada, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0044-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney representing clients on numerous matters was censured, inter alia, for failure to respond to status inquiries by medical providers and failure to advise providers that clients' cases settled; negligence caused little or no injury.
|
|||||
| In re Herbert, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0041-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was censured for representing couple regarding renovations to their home, and then, while wife was on a trip, signing a lease with the husband to rent the house and threatened the wife by filing a forcible detainer to have her removed.
|
|||||
| In re Moore, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0043-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 5, 2002, Decided , March 5, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was representing client in a domestic matter and was censured for, inter alia, making inquiries of client concerning personal matters of a sexual nature and embracing her upon arrival and departure, making the client uncomfortable.
|
|||||
| Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 CA-JV 01-0078,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, March 6, 2002, Decided , March 6, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ariz. Dep't of Revenue v. Ariz. Outdoor Advertisers, Inc., 1 CA-TX 99-0012,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, March 7, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tax court correctly found billboards were personal property not taxed as income from the commercial leasing of real property; in upholding, appellate court instituted a new "reasonable person" test departing from traditional fixtures analysis.
|
|||||
| Crowe v. Hickman's Egg Ranch, 1 CA-CV 00-0410,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, March 12, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mississippi contractor's failure to be licensed in Arizona when a contract to build hen houses and an egg processing plant in Arizona was entered into and when the cause of action arose was a complete bar to an action for payment on the contract.
|
|||||
| Ruth Fisher Elem. Sch. Dist. v. Buckeye Union High Sch. Dist., 1 CA-CV 01-0133,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, March 12, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Students living in common school district that did not have a high school were eligible to attend high school in another school district as tuition students; they were not given choice by statute to attend as open enrollment students.
|
|||||
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. |
