 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hanley v. Indus. Comm'n, 1 CA-IC 00-0085, 1 CA-CV 00-0355, (Consolidated),
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, April 17, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arizona Industrial Commission's special fund was obligated to pay 100 percent of incarcerated claimant's workers' compensation benefits for child support in order to comply with order of assignment.
|
|||||
| In re Scholl, Supreme Court No. SB-00-0085-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 18, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney, a former judge who had been convicted of filing false tax returns in connection with a gambling addiction, was suspended from practicing law for six months. Recommended two-year suspension was not justified.
|
|||||
| Siporin v. Carrington, 1 CA-CV 00-0118,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, April 19, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Viatical settlement agreements appellees sold met all three prongs of the Howey test and constituted investment contracts. Thus, their sale constituted the sale of securities and they were subject to statutory regulation.
|
|||||
| State v. Rodriguez, 2 CA-CR 00-0242,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, April 19, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's sentence for possession of narcotics was vacated and remanded where the trial court failed to make an adequate investigation in to whether appellant was eligible for probation under statute.
|
|||||
| In re An Inactive, COMM. NO. 00-0147,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 24, 2001, Decided , April 24, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| STATE v. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N OF ARIZONA, 2 CA-IC 00-0053,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, April 24, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court was unable to perform the type of review that workers' compensation cases required because the findings of the ALJ failed to include the essential and determinative facts on which the conclusion was reached.
|
|||||
| Fehribach v. Smith, 1 CA-CV 00-0382,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, April 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by finding as matter of summary judgment that sufficient time existed for receiver to have repaired pothole, such that it was for jury to have allocated fault between receiver and apartment complex owners.
|
|||||
| State v. Paleo, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-00-0284-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, April 26, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claim that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause by waiving two of its peremptory strikes failed, where he failed to present any evidence the State waived its strikes for a discriminatory purpose.
|
|||||
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. |
