The name of a rule that is used when an ejectment suit, one that obtains possession ...
District Court for the District of Arizona Court Cases
Healing v. Jones (1962)These lands, consisting of some 2,500,000 acres, or 3,900 square miles, were withdrawn from the public domain under an executive order signed by President Chester A. Arthur on December 16, 1882. In that order it was provided that this rectangular tract, about seventy miles long and fifty-five miles wide, hereinafter referred to as the 1882 reservation, would be "* * * for the use and occupancy of the Moqui, and such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to settle [...]
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Civ. No. 579
Shamrock Foods Co. v. Gast (2008)Pending is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 17.) This motion requires the Court to interpret the meaning of the terms "without authorization" and "exceeds authorized access" in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 "U.S.C. § 1030. The Court concludes that a violation for accessing a protected computer "without authorization" occurs only when initial access is not permitted. And, an "exceeds authorized access" violation occurs only when initial access to a protected computer is [...]
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: CV-08-0219-PHX-ROS
Josef Cooper, San Francisco, Cal., Kenneth R. Reed, Chief Counsel, Antitrust Div., Phoenix, Ariz., Frederick Furth, Furth, Fahrner, Bluemle, Mason & Wong, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: MDL Docket No. 296. Master File No. CIV 76-488 A PHX CAM
Fennemore, Craig, Von Ammon, Udall & Powers, Calvin H. Udall, Ruth V. McGregor, Phoenix, Ariz., Swanson, Midgley, Gangwere, Clark & Kitchin, George H. Gangwere, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: 83-552 TUC ACM
Michael Carey Shaw, Law Offices of Bybee & Shaw, Tempe, AZ, Floyd Bybee, Bybee & Shaw, Tempe, AZ, O. Randolph Bragg, Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Harry W Brink, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, plaintiff.
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Civ-97-1261-PHX-ROS
Dodge v. Nakai (1968)This action is brought on behalf of three plaintiffs: (1) a class of indigent Navajo Indians who secure legal assistance from Dinebeiina Nahiilna Be Agaditahe, Inc., (hereinafter called DNA), a nonprofit legal services corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arizona and financed by the Office of Economic Opportunity; (2) DNA and eight Navajo Indians who serve on the board of directors of DNA; and (3) Theodore R. Mitchell, a nonmember of the Navajo tribe who serves as executive [...]
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Civ-1209 Pct
This is an action for injunctive relief and cost recovery under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq., and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. Plaintiff United States and defendants Jack and Geraldine Neal, Jacqueline F. Querns, D.W. Jaquays Mining and Contractors Equipment Co., and Jaquays Mining Corp. have filed cross-motions for partial [...]
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: CIV-83-309-GLO-RMB
William S. Lerach, Leonard B. Simon, John J. Stoia, Jr., Milberg Weiss Bershad Specthrie & Lerach, Kirk B. Hulett, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, San Diego, Cal., for Shields CIV 90-566 PHX-RMB.
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: MDL No. 834
Comer v. Stewart (2002)
The Court issued an Order on June 20, 2002, announcing its decision and finding that Petitioner Robert Comer was competent to dismiss habeas counsel and to forego further legal review, and that he made these decisions voluntarily. The Court issued an opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 29, 2002. This amended opinion is issued to correct typographical and grammatical errors.
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: CV-94-1469-PHX-ROS
In Re Johnston (2005)
Craig J. Bolton, Jennings Haug & Cunningham LLP, Adam Bennett Nach, Lane & Nach PC, Michael W. Carmel, Michael W. Carmel Ltd., Daniel Hunt Bergin, Thomas I. McClory, Office of Attorney General, Civil Division, Phoenix, AZ, for appellees.
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Civ. No. 03-1735-PHX-ROS. Bankruptcy No. 01-06221-SSC. Adversary No. 01-00885-SSC
Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York ("MONY") appeals the bankruptcy court's order confirming Patrician St. Joseph Limited Partnership's (the "Debtor's") Plan of Reorganization. (Bankruptcy Court Docket No. 256; hereinafter DN 256). The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: CIV 94-034 TUC RMB. Bankruptcy No. 92-02461-TUC-LO
Jeffers v. Ricketts (1986)
Petitioner [hereinafter referred to as Jeffers], filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ง 2254. He challenges his convictions for assault with a deadly weapon and first degree murder. He also challenges his sentence of death.
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: CIV 85-0945 TUC ACM
Vore v. US Dept. of Justice (2003)
Gerald S Frank, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tucson, AZ, for Justice, Department of, John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Prisons, Federal Bureau of, Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director, Berta Lockhart, Warden, dfts.
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: CV 02-405 TUC DCB
Defendants Aurora Loan Services, LLC ("Aurora") and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. # 16. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp. ("Cal-Western") has joined the motion. Dkt. # 17. The motion has been fully briefed. Dkt. ## 18-19. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion.
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: CV-09-37-PHX-DGC
Richmond v. Cardwell (1978)The issues have been presented to this Court by way of two separate petitions for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, submitted by Petitioners Willie Lee Richmond and Jose Jesus Ceja, both of whom have been convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-454. These petitions have been treated together for the reason that they both raise substantially the same issues regarding the constitutionality of the Arizona death penalty cited above. Also [...]
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: CIV 77-703 PHX-CAM, CIV 78-96 PHX-CAM
The sole issue presented in this action is whether the Arizona statutes relating to mechanics' and materialmen's liens, A.R.S. § 33-981 et seq., are in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Civ. No. 72-417 Phx WEC
United States v. Mussari (1995)Allan Mussari ("Defendant") was indicted on January 11, 1995 on one count of Failure to Pay Child Support Obligation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228, the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 ("CSRA"). The complaint alleges that the Arizona Superior Court in and for Maricopa County, by an order dated October 7, 1988, ordered Defendant to pay $752.00 per month in child support to his ex-wife for the benefit of their children. The complaint further alleges that Defendant lives in Illinois, [...]
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: CR 95-009 PHX PGR
This action was filed by U-Haul International, Inc. (U-Haul), June 16, 1980, seeking to enjoin continued publication of certain advertisements by Jartran, Inc. (Jartran) as well as recovery of damages claimed to result from that advertising program.[*]
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: CIV 80-454 PHX-EHC
Crosson v. Silver (1970)
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 seeking declaratory relief and an injunction restraining defendant from further criminal proceedings against plaintiff under the Arizona flag desecration statute, A.R.S. § 41-793, subsec. C (1956). This three-judge court was convened since the requests for relief meet the criteria of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 et seq. Our jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4).
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: Civil 70-79 Tucson
At docket 7, defendants Aurora Loan Services, LLC ("Aurora") and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") move to dismiss plaintiffs complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At docket 8, plaintiff Michael Diessner ("Diessner") opposes the motion. Defendants Aurora and MERS reply at docket 10. Oral argument was not requested and it would not assist the court.
Court: District Court for the District of Arizona Docket: 2:09-cv-00095 JWS