 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Citizens for Growth Mgmt. v. Groscost, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-00-0259-SA,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, December 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court ordered that language in an analysis of a ballot initiative be deleted or revised; rather than being impartial, the analysis was directed at influencing the reader before he or she even saw the text of the proposal.
|
|||||
| Healthy Ariz. Initiative PAC v. Goscost, Arizona Supreme Court CV-00-0274-SA,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, December 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Analyses of ballot initiative gave false impression that the state could not afford the program; thus the court ordered that certain paragraphs of the analyses be deleted or revised to provide an impartial description of the initiative measure.
|
|||||
| Sotomayor v. Burns, ARIZONA SUPREME COURT NO CV-00-0305-SA,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, December 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An analysis of a ballot initiative misstated Arizona law regarding bilingual education. The court ordered that the misstatement be deleted or revised. However, petitioners' remaining claims were untimely.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lee, Supreme Court No. CV-99-0407-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, December 8, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arizona law precluded insurer from using attorney-client privilege as sword and shield by arguing that claims representatives relied on their subjective understanding of law but seeking to protect sources of understanding.
|
|||||
| In re Moises L., 1 CA-JV 00-0121,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, December 12, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of identity needed to be documentary, not verbal, when motorist was stopped by police. Because person of ordinary intelligence could understand identification requirement, statute not unconstitutionally vague.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Tempe Elem. Sch. Dist. No. 3 Governing Bd., 1 CA-CV 99-0555,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, December 12, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The school board's legal action in violation of the open meeting law was null and void because the open meeting statutes required the board members to meet in public for the final decision to vote or appeal.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Tempe Elem. Sch. Dist. No. 3 Governing Bd., 1 CA-CV 99-0555,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, December 12, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Once school board finished privately discussing merits of appealing, open meeting statutes required board members to meet in public for the final decision to appeal. Board's legal action in violation of open meeting law was null and void.
|
|||||
| Keller v. Thurston (In re Estate of Thurston), 1 CA-CV 99-0629,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, December 12, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to set aside first accounting of estate was affirmed as the evidence supported the finding that co-representatives did not engage in extrinsic fraud that prevented appellant from timely objecting to the first accounting.
|
|||||
| Kosman v. State, 1 CA-CV 99-0616,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, December 12, 2000, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff inmate's tort claim against state defendants did not qualify as a claim that had to be submitted to defendant's grievance system.
|
|||||
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. |
