Legal Opinion
In re Macartney
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided January 30, 1990No. SB-89-0057-PRPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FELDMAN, Vice Chief Justice.
Margaret L. Macartney and Roger M. Sherman (petitioners) applied to take the Arizona bar examination. They petition this court to waive the provisions of Rule 34(c)(1)(D), Ariz.R.Sup.Ct., 17A A.R.S. (hereafter Rule_). Grant of the petition would allow petitioners to sit for the examination, even though they did not graduate from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA), as required by Rule 34. We have authority to waive this requirement pursuant to Rule 36(f).
The court denied the petition by order of October 13, 1989. Petitioners moved for…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NMSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power v. National Audubon SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Application of LevineArizona Supreme Court · 1964
- Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- Brown v. Babbitt Ford, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1977
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Beltran v. HARRAH'S ARIZONA CORP.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
- In Re DoeringNebraska Supreme Court · 2008
- Raul Beltran, Sr. and Ann Beltran v. Harrah's Arizona Corp.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2008