 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Seplow, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0108-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 8, 2002, Decided , October 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The attorney negligently failed to supervise his non-lawyer employees, and the pattern of neglect caused injury and potential injury to the attorney's clients, resulting in censure and probation for the attorney.
|
|||||
| Knight Transp., Inc. v. Ariz. DOT, 1 CA-CV 01-0541,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, October 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where company registered its trucks in Indiana under International Registration Plan, the Arizona Department of Transportation did have the statutory authority to assess interest on underpaid proportional registration fees.
|
|||||
| West v. State, 2 CA-CV 2001-0055,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT A, October 8, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where sexually abused foster child brought a suit against her foster family, and was awarded damages in that suit, her subsequent suit against state was barred; she should have joined the state as a necessary party in the suit against the family.
|
|||||
| Medasys Acquisition Corp. v. SDMS, P.C., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-02-0045-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 10, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A party's election of the equitable remedy of rescission did not preclude party from also receiving an award of punitive damages and was appropriate to penalize corporation for outwardly outrageous or fraudulent conduct coupled with an evil mind.
|
|||||
| State v. Stauffer, 2 CA-SA 2002-0067,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO, DEPARTMENT B, October 10, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Witness in defendant's prosecution for an offense against a third person had the right to refuse to be interviewed by the defense under the Victims' Bill of Rights, as witness was a victim of defendant in an unrelated case.
|
|||||
| May v. McNally, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-02-0215-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The 10 percent surcharge on criminal and civil fines required by the Act did not violate the First Amendment by impermissibly compelling the fine payers to support political candidates whom they might not otherwise support.
|
|||||
| State v. Minnitt, Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-99-0243-AP,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 11, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The double jeopardy provision in the Arizona Constitution should have barred defendant's third retrial because in both the 1993 and 1997 trials the prosecutor engaged in extreme misconduct that he knew was grossly improper and highly prejudicial.
|
|||||
| Wilmot v. Wilmot, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-02-0130-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 15, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decedent's widow prosecuting a wrongful death case could not settle the case without the consent of the decedent's estranged children, and was obligated to notify the children, or their counsel, of a hearing on her motion to confirm a settlement.
|
|||||
| State v. Dean, 1 CA-CR 01-0827,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT C, October 17, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress evidence found pursuant to the search of a vehicle was reversed and remanded, as defendant could not evade the search of the his vehicle incident to arrest by running into the residence as soon as he was confronted by police.
|
|||||
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. |
