 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Flynn, Supreme Court No. SB-00-0046-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 28, 2000, Decided , July 28, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disbarment appropriate for respondent attorney who abandoned clients, and failed to return unused fee retainers, as sanction consistent with previous court discipline, ABA standards, and need for deterrence and to protect public and profession .
|
|||||
| In re Musselman, Supreme Court No. SB-00-0051-RD,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 28, 2000, Decided , July 28, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reciprocal discipline was authorized for Arizona attorneys disciplined elsewhere unless an attorney could show due process violation, inadequate proof, grave injustice, or that sanction was inappropriate under state law.
|
|||||
| In re Pillinger, Supreme Court No. SB-00-0047-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 28, 2000, Decided , July 28, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suspension of six months and one day was appropriate sanction for attorney's criminal convictions and probation violations, because sanction was proportional to behavior and designed to protect the public, not punish the attorney.
|
|||||
| In re Rogers, Supreme Court No. SB-00-0050-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 28, 2000, Decided , July 28, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The money paid by attorney's clients was an advance fee that should have been deposited in his trust account and paid to him personally only as he actually incurred the fees, even though the retainer agreements were labeled "nonrefundable."
|
|||||
| Benitez v. Dunevant, Supreme Court No. CV-98-0540-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, July 31, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial for driving on a DUI-suspended driver's license was not jury eligible because the offense had no common-law antecedent, was not a crime reflecting serious moral turpitude, and did not carry sufficiently severe penalties.
|
|||||
| Lifeflite Med. Air Transp., Inc. v. Native Am. Air Servs., 1 CA-CV 99-0099,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT E, August 3, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Not guilty judgment on racketeering charge was affirmed where jury instruction based on the amended Arizona racketeering statute which included the federal definition of "continued unlawful activity" was a proper statement of the law.
|
|||||
| Diggs v. Arizona Cardiologists, Ltd., 1 CA-CV 99-0508,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, August 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a cardiologist undertook to give advice to a treating physician regarding a patient's care and treatment knowing that his advice would be relied on, the cardiologist owed a duty of reasonable care to the patient.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Continental Ins. Co., 1 CA-CV 99-0354,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, August 15, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Umbrella insurance coverage was not transformed into primary coverage merely because both were issued under same policy number, such that umbrella coverage was exempt from statutory underinsured motorist offer requirement.
|
|||||
| Kyle v. Daniels, Supreme Court No. CV-00-0286-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 16, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Legislative proscriptions against write-in candidacies applied exclusively to the general election process, so write-in candidate was not enjoined from candidacy in the primary election.
|
|||||
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. |
