|
|
| |
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 Courts -
Arizona - August 31 - September 7, 2001
|
| |
|
| |
Graville v. Dodge, 1 CA-CV 99-0582,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, August 31, 2001, Decided , August 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
In re Oliver, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-01-0123-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 31, 2001, Decided , August 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Attorney was disbarred where she failed to provide disbursement sheets to a client, failed to promptly notify a lien holder of settlement and her receipt of funds, and the conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
|
|
| |
In re Turnage, Arizona Supreme Court No. SB-01-0120-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, August 31, 2001, Decided , August 31, 2001, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Attorney was suspended from practice of law for four years for misconduct, including failing to provide diligent representation, and failing to pay lien holders. Upon reinstatement, attorney was ordered to be placed on probation for two years.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Albers v. Edelson Tech. Partners, L.P., 1 CA-CV 00-0406,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, September 4, 2001, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Dismissal of counts one, two, and three of the complaint were reversed to the extent that they relied upon individual injuries to plaintiffs' voting power, stock options, salary, and employment contracts because they were not derivative actions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|