 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Ring, Supreme Court No. CR-97-0428-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 20, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Affidavit supporting the necessity for electronic surveillance fully complied with necessity requirement, and trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying capital murder defendant's motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| In re Odneal, Supreme Court No. SB-01-0108-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 21, 2001, Decided , June 21, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was censured for conduct in violation of her duties and obligations as a lawyer, and attorney was placed on probation for one year. Agreed upon discipline was an appropriate disposition of case.
|
|||||
| In re Sodikoff, Supreme Court No. SB-01-0109-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 21, 2001, Decided , June 21, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney failed to communicate with his client, failed to provide an accounting of services, and failed to timely respond to the state bar's inquiries, censure was an appropriate sanction.
|
|||||
| State v. Nordstrom, Supreme Court No. CR-98-0278-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 21, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Capital murder defendant failed to show that trial court abused its discretion in failing to find presumed prejudice sufficient to require a change of venue, and defendant also failed to make a showing of actual prejudice.
|
|||||
| In re Shaver, Supreme Court No. SB-01-0114-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where attorney violated ethics rules by not providing adequate attention to his files, by not being diligent, by failing to communicate with his clients, and by failing to resolve fee disputes, he was censured and placed on probation.
|
|||||
| BERNHART v. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N OF ARIZONA, 1 CA-IC 99-0136,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, June 28, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a workers' compensation matter, statutory law denying only disability benefits for an otherwise compensable occupational disease did not justify a finding that an employee's claims were non-compensable in their entirety.
|
|||||
| Diefenbach v. Holmberg, 2 CA-CV 00-0174,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, June 28, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Modification to original marital settlement agreement granting ex-wife several additional years of spousal maintenance was not sufficiently explicit to preserve ex-husband's obligation to pay spousal maintenance after ex-wife's death.
|
|||||
| In re Lancaster, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-01-0119-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, June 28, 2001, Decided , June 28, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where attorney knowingly violated her duty to her clients by misappropriating trust account funds and by failing to maintain accurate trust account records causing potential injury to her clients, she was censured and placed on probation.
|
|||||
| Phoenix Newspapers Inc. v. Molera1, 1 CA-CV 00-0559,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, June 28, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As long as the Arizona State Board of Education released the achievement test results and reports by the time required by law, the newspaper had not been denied access to public records in violation of the public records laws.
|
|||||
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. |
