 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Allen, Supreme Court No. SB-01-0112-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 30, 2001, Decided , August 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to an agreement between the disciplinary committee and the attorney, the attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days, and placed on probation for two years for commingling and mishandling client funds.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Fishman, 2 CA-CV 00-0065,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, August 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of widow was improper as estate presented sufficient evidence to raise genuine issue of material fact as to whether widow should have retained all of insurance proceeds.
|
|||||
| S Dev. Co. v. Pima Capital Mgmt. Co., 1 CA-CV 00-0347,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, August 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: $ 3,690,000 judgment for apartment complex buyers against sellers in nondisclosure claim over defective plumbing, where sellers prohibited inspection within walls and contracts had "as is" clauses, was affirmed.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Pennartz v. Olcavage, 1 CA-SA 01-0130,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, August 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Phlebotomists were qualified to draw blood under the driving under the influence statute, and evidence of the blood test results for the tests that they performed was admissible at trial.
|
|||||
| Wash. Elem. Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. Maricopa County, 1 CA-CV 00-0281,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT D, August 30, 2001, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly refused to order county to prepare an informational report and a sample ballot for a second budget override election in the 2000-2001 fiscal year. School district could hold only one override election during that fiscal year.
|
|||||
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. |
