 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Browne v. Bayless, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-01-0383-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Filing deadline for independent presidential candidate to appear on ballot did not impose severe restrictions on candidate's First Amendment rights and furthered important regulatory interests of state, inter alia, printing final ballots.
|
|||||
| Evanchyk v. Stewart, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-01-0358-CQ,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Arizona Supreme Court answered three questions from the United States District Court regarding Arizona law in a proceeding for writ of habeas corpus based on the petitioner's conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
|
|||||
| In re Blaine, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0071-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 24, 2002, Decided , May 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was suspended from the practice of law, because he failed to effectively represent his clients in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer.
|
|||||
| In re Phillips, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-02-0060-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 24, 2002, Decided , May 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred for15 counts alleging multiple instances of misconduct that included, abandonment of his clients, failure to provide them with competent and diligent representation, failure to communicate with them, and conversion of funds.
|
|||||
| In re Ruiz, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-02-0064-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 24, 2002, Decided , May 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suspended attorney was suspended for six months where he failed to file a bankruptcy for a client that resulted in the client's wages being garnished. Attorney did not return the fees the client had paid and failed to respond to bar inquiries.
|
|||||
| In re Yates, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0069-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 24, 2002, Decided , May 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was suspended from the practice of law, as while he was previously suspended, he continued to practice law and misrepresented to opposing counsel, courts, and clients that he was not suspended from the practice of law.
|
|||||
| State v. Finch, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-99-0551-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After Miranda warnings, defendant asked for attorney, then told detectives that he would talk to them. The trial court did not err when it refused to exclude his confession, as defendant reinitiated contact with police after request for counsel.
|
|||||
| State v. Phillips, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-99-0296-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 24, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was incorrectly convicted of felony murder, where the evidence showed he intended to facilitate a robbery, not to facilitate or aid in committing a murder, and defendant was not the one who actually shot and killed the victim.
|
|||||
| HENDRICKSON v. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N OF ARIZONA, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-00-0375-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 29, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals erred when it affirmed that an injured employee, receiving workers' compensation benefits, forfeited her right to future benefits, because, inter alia, she settled product liability suit without obtaining her insurer's permission.
|
|||||
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. |
