 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| ARIZONA CONSUMERS COUNCIL v. ARIZONA CORP. COMM'N, 1 CA-CC 99-0006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, April 5, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent's decision was lawful, reasonable, and supported by substantial evidence. Since under the state constitution, respondent had complete and exclusive power to set rates, it also had authority to enter into rate contracts.
|
|||||
| In re Russell M., 2 CA-JV 00-0086,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, April 5, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statutory provision required that the juvenile court, at a minimum, had to place appellant, as a repeat felony juvenile offender, on juvenile intensive probation, while only more restrictive sanctions were discretionary.
|
|||||
| In re Hoyt, Supreme Court No. SB-01-0068-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 6, 2001, Decided , April 6, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's directions to purge a file of certain memoranda, thought to be work product, was a violation of rules of professional conduct, and resulted in censure, probation for one year, and payment of the costs of the proceedings.
|
|||||
| In re Loftus, Supreme Court No. SB-01-0070-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 6, 2001, Decided , April 6, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's failure to diligently pursue matters in divorce and contract cases, or to maintain contact with clients, resulted in censure, with requirement of restitution to clients, work with a practice monitor, and ethics program.
|
|||||
| In re Marko, Supreme Court No. SB-01-0067-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 6, 2001, Decided , April 6, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's negligent handling of a collection matter, resulting in dismissal of the case to his client's prejudice, warranted a censure and probation for one year under the state's law office management assistance program.
|
|||||
| City of Phoenix v. Wilson, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-00-0149-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 10, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an eminent domain case, trial judge did not err in allowing landowners' expert to estimate damages based on his opinion that a portion of the original parcel had a different and highest best use from the rest.
|
|||||
| Olde Disc. Corp. v. Superior Court, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-01-0115-SA.,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 13, 2001, Decided , April 13, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where brokers raised issues in motion to stay that had been previously presented in prior special actions and motions, it was inappropriate to revisit the issues, and motion to stay was denied.
|
|||||
| Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Barerra, Supreme Court No. CV-99-0388-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 16, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: DUI exclusion in supplemental liability insurance policy purchased by driver, who was involved in collision while he was under the influence of alcohol, violated the reasonable expectations doctrine and was unenforceable.
|
|||||
| State v. McCann, Supreme Court No. CR-99-0227-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 16, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's prior conviction for DUI carried with it a presumption of regularity even though the record failed to disclose whether appellant was represented by counsel.
|
|||||
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. |
