 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| ALCOA v. Loy, CA01-639,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where workers' compensation commission erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the employer, to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that employee's claim for hearing aids was time barred, reversal of award was required.
|
|||||
| Beason v. State, CACR01-878,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient independent evidence corroborated accomplice's claim that defendant possessed methamphetamine paraphernalia, including apparent iodine stains on his hands, ephedrine found in his car, and his admission that he supplied the ephedrine.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Jones, CA 01-569,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a quiet title action over the exact location of the boundary between adjoining properties, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's holding that appellants had failed to prove a boundary by acquiescence by a preponderance of the evidence.
|
|||||
| Cannon v. State, CACR00-1192,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appellate counsel was ordered to re-brief where the record did not contain the felony information, judgment and commitment order, or notice of appeal relating to a battery charge which resulted in defendant's probation revocation.
|
|||||
| Cash v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., CA01-576,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Striking defendants' answer, dismissing their counterclaim, and granting default judgment to plaintiff for defendants' three-day late filing of answer and counterclaim due to lack of excusable neglect were affirmed.
|
|||||
| Chism v. Alcoa, CA01-655,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation commission erred by declining to consider claimant's argument that his employer should be estopped from relying on the statute of limitations, as the claimant had preserved the issue for review.
|
|||||
| Davison v. State, CACR 01-348,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that baby victim's injury could not have resulted from fall from height defendant claimed, but that bleeding of the brain had to be caused by forceful shaking, allowed trial court to infer requisite intent for second-degree battery.
|
|||||
| Fisher v. Pinecrest Mem. Cemetery, CA01-418,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where children petitioned to have their father's body exhumed and buried in closer cemetery, denial of request was proper because children were minors, and thus control of burial vested in next of kin, sister and mother.
|
|||||
| Harris v. State, CACR01-796,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though defendant had accompanied men who later kidnapped and killed the victim, as there was no evidence that he aided or attempted to aid the other men when they put the victim in the trunk, evidence was insufficient to convict him of kidnapping.
|
|||||
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. |
