 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Smith v. Cigna HealthPlan, 2 CA-CV 2001-0125,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, July 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The doctor's claim against her employer was not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act because the record established that the doctor was a supervisor in her position, as such, her state claims were not preempted.
|
|||||
| State v. Jeffrey, 2 CA-CR 2000-0260,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, July 30, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's kidnapping convictions were affirmed, as absence of duress was not an element of kidnapping, and the legislature could constitutionally impose upon the defendant the burden of proving the defense of duress.
|
|||||
| In re Schlievert, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0110-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 1, 2002, Decided , August 1, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was publicly censured, placed on probation for one year, and ordered to pay restitution and costs; although he pursued a collection matter against a client whom he represented in a domestic case, he was unaware of the conflict.
|
|||||
| In re Sodaro, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0111-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 1, 2002, Decided , August 1, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney, a non-member of the state bar, was censured in connection with her unauthorized practice of law on behalf of a close personal friend when she sent letters to various individuals that included legal statements and conclusions.
|
|||||
| Conti v. Bishop, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-02-0229-AP/EL,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 2, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly declined to disqualify defendant for a justice of the peace office, even though defendant obtained all his petition signatures before he amended his statement of organization.
|
|||||
| In re Edelman, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0095-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 7, 2002, Decided , August 7, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because of mitigating factors that included fact attorney was public service lawyer, he was suspended for only 30 days, where he failed to post payments to clients and reimbursement dates on ledger cards in violation of trust account guidelines.
|
|||||
| In re Kelly, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0100-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 7, 2002, Decided , August 7, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended for two years where he, inter alia, failed to render an accounting to his clients or return monies due to them, failed to perform any services after having been paid, and failed to respond to state bar's letters of inquiry.
|
|||||
| Higginbottom v. State, 1 CA-CV 01-0520,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT A, August 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where director was appointed for a five-year term, but served by statute at the pleasure of the governor, the legislative intent was that the director served a five year term, unless the governor removed him before the term expired.
|
|||||
| Peak v. Acuna, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-02-0147-SA,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: If relief granted by the trial judge was based on a finding that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, a new trial was not barred by double jeopardy. Double jeopardy was applicable where evidence was insufficient to prove guilt.
|
|||||
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. |
