 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-02-0020-CQ,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 18, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The supreme court held that the statute regulating mandatory arbitration did not authorize a system obliging attorneys who are active members of the state bar to serve as arbitrators.
|
|||||
| LaFaro v. Cahill, 1 CA-CV 01-0084,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, October 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court held that civil harassment statute was not unconstitutional in all its potential applications, as long as its definition of harassment, conduct that "served no legitimate purpose," was construed to exclude pure political speech.
|
|||||
| Simat Corp. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-02-0324-PR,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arizona Constitution did not permit state agency to refuse to fund medically necessary abortions for women suffering from serious illness while funding abortions for rape or incest victims or when abortion was necessary to save the woman's life.
|
|||||
| State v. Morrison, 1 CA-CR 01-0789,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE, DEPARTMENT B, October 22, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where mother had a good faith, objectively reasonable basis for believing it was necessary to vicariously consent to the taping of child's telephone conversation, the recording was lawful under statute, and its use as evidence was not prohibited.
|
|||||
| In re Kerrin, Supreme Court No. SB-02-0140-D,
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, October 23, 2002, Decided , October 23, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was censured for failing to properly manage her IOLTA account where complainant was her ex-bookkeeper, and the attorney was also pregnant and working from home and unable to monitor her sole bookkeeper and maintain appropriate records.
|
|||||
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. |
