 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Coy v. Fields, 2 CA-SA 01-0018,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, May 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner was indicted for kidnapping and sexual abuse, and entered into a plea agreement with the State, and trial court granted State's motion to withdraw from plea agreement, court abused its discretion in doing so.
|
|||||
| Hahn v. Pima County, 2 CA-CV 00-0200,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, May 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County's failure to compensate corrections officers for unpaid lunch breaks did not violate overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Officers did not primarily perform work during their lunch breaks for county's predominate benefit.
|
|||||
| In re Brown, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-01-0096-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 31, 2001, Decided , May 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended for three years, and ordered to pay restitution and costs, due to unethical conduct including failing to: (1) communicate with clients; (2) diligently pursue clients' cause; and (3) respond to state bar's investigation.
|
|||||
| In re Mohling, Supreme Court No. SB-01-0074-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 31, 2001, Decided , May 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from practice of law for 18 months for abandoning certain of his criminal clients and failing to respond in writing to inquiries from the State Bar of Arizona, given presence of significant mitigation.
|
|||||
| In re Rogers, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-01-0061-R,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 31, 2001, Decided , May 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Roos, Supreme Court No. SB-00-0094-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 31, 2001, Decided , May 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended for 90 days, placed on probation for 18 months, and ordered to pay costs of proceeding for engaging in misconduct that amounted to misappropriation or conversion, and in failing to establish proper accounting procedures.
|
|||||
| In re Silkey, Supreme Court No. SB-01-0078-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 31, 2001, Decided , May 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from practice of law for 60 days, placed on probation for a year, and ordered to pay costs due to improperly managing trust account, failing to maintain records of account funds, and failing to respond to investigation.
|
|||||
| In re Sivic, Supreme Court No. SB-01-0077-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, May 31, 2001, Decided , May 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc., 1 CA-CV 00-0260,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, May 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a negligence action the jury had to assess some fault against a non-party whose fault was undisputed, and appellants were entitled to a new trial on all issues because the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence prejudiced them.
|
|||||
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. |
