Little v. Hauser

Arizona Supreme Court

Little v. Hauser

890 P.2d 1140, 181 Ariz. 355

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1995

DocketNo. CV-94-0271-PR

StatusPublished

This text of 890 P.2d 1140 (Little v. Hauser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Little v. Hauser, 890 P.2d 1140, 181 Ariz. 355 (Ark. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

It appearing to the Court that the grant of review in this ease was improvident,

. IT IS ORDERED that the order granting review is vacated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for review is denied.

FELDMAN, Chief Justice, dissents from this order because he believes that the Court of Appeals should have affirmed the trial court’s order on the issue presented: Mr. Little and his attorney violated the trial judge’s preliminary injunction by seizing Mrs. Little’s automobile and selling it. Justice Feldman would therefore have depubl-ished the opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

It appearing to the Court that the grant of review in this ease was improvident,

. IT IS ORDERED that the order granting review is vacated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for review is denied.

FELDMAN, Chief Justice, dissents from this order because he believes that the Court of Appeals should have affirmed the trial court’s order on the issue presented: Mr. Little and his attorney violated the trial judge’s preliminary injunction by seizing Mrs. Little’s automobile and selling it. Justice Feldman would therefore have depubl-ished the opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

890 P.2d 1140, 181 Ariz. 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-hauser-ariz-1995.