You are here
Opinions
The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2012 to current, listed by year and judge.
Judicial opinions from the District of Arizona, as well as other participating courts from throughout the nation, can also be accessed through the U.S. Government Publishing Office's United States Courts Opinions web page. To view judicial opinions on the GPO’s website, click here.
| Date | Description |
Judge |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/09/11 |
Amanda Melton (4:09-bk-02131-JMM) 06/09/11 Memorandum Decision |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 05/04/12 |
Jim D. Smith, Bankruptcy Trustee V. Michael Larmar Gray And Heather Lundgreen, Debtor; (0:12-ap-00451-JMM) 05/04/12 Memorandum Decision Re: Motion to Dismiss by Bank Of America, N.A. |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 01/26/10 |
Robert W Nichols And Mary Ann Nichols (4:05-bk-02153-JMM) 01/26/10 Memorandum Decision |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 04/27/05 |
Craig V. Educational Credit Management Corporation (4:04-ap-00115-JMM) 04/27/05 Memorandum Decision |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 02/28/08 |
First Magnus Financial Corporation (4:07-bk-01578-JMM) 02/28/08 Memorandum Decision re: Broker's Commission |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 01/24/12 |
Gem Maintenance, Llc V. Jackson Et Al (2:10-ap-00114-JMM) 01/24/12 Memorandum Decision |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 06/20/07 |
Jeff P Scott (4:05-bk-07811-JMM) 06/20/07 Memorandum Decision re: Trustee's Motion to Alter or Amend Order |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 07/15/08 |
P+P, Llc V. Friedman Et Al (4:08-ap-00115-JMM) 07/15/08 Memorandum Decision |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 09/23/11 |
Nflux, Llc (0:10-bk-27643-JMM) 09/23/11 Memorandum Decision |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 12/13/12 |
Huggins v. Skinner (4:12-ap-00955-JMM) 12/13/12 Holding: After a trail on the alleged non-dischareability of a particular debt, the court found that Defendant, Shane Skinner, made a representation that was so far beyond his financial reality as to be deceptive, and that, when made, he knew that he either could not or would not perform his promise to quickly pay off the underlying lien on the vehicle. Huggins reasonably and justifiably relied on this representation and all five elements under § 523(a)(2)(A)required for a finding of non-dischargeability were met. |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) |