 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Murray, Supreme Court No. SB-00-0013-RD,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 23, 2000, Decided , March 23, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rollin v. William V. Frankel & Co., 2 CA-CV 99-0164,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, March 23, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lack of systematic and continuous, or minimal, contacts by defendant stock market dealers with Arizona, home of plaintiff stock purchasers, was fatal to plaintiffs' claim in the Arizona courts for sales of worthless stock.
|
|||||
| Michael J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., Supreme Court No. CV-99-0129-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, March 30, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sufficient basis existed to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that appellant incarcerated father abandoned his son under the statutory definition, but not that his felony convictions rendered him an unfit parent.
|
|||||
| Najar v. State, 2 CA-CV 98-0229,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, March 30, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant-appellant's neutral decision-maker denied plaintiff-appellee's promotion on basis of potential disruption in future supervision, judgment reversed because decision not due to retaliation for prior grievance.
|
|||||
| State v. Johnson, 2 CA-CR 98-0572,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, March 30, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by allowing State to amend criminal information after victim testified, since amended charges were of different nature than original charges and appellant was not afforded adequate opportunity to defend.
|
|||||
| Siemsen v. Davis, 1 CA-CV 98-0651,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, April 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs not entitled to private condemnation of roadway across defendant's land; alternative means of access to plaintiffs' land existed, alternative route was adequate, although a four-wheel drive vehicle was necessary.
|
|||||
| Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 1 CA-TX 99-0005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT T, April 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals awarding appellee taxpayer $ 20,000 in attorneys' fees was the maximum amount authorized by statute, additional attorneys' fees awarded by the tax court was in error.
|
|||||
| Tobias v. Dailey, 1 CA-CV 98-0684,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, April 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment below was upheld, as appellants were not entitled to private way of necessity over appellees' roadway where appellants failed to meet burden of proving reasonable necessity, and implied way of necessity existed.
|
|||||
| United Metro Materials, Inc. v. Pena Blanca Props., L.L.C., 1 CA-CV 99-0331,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, April 4, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A lien waiver and release that a rock company executed did not operate to release its claim for payment for materials provided for a construction project, since the partial release covered only invoices specified on the release form.
|
|||||
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. |
