 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson Gas & Propane, Inc. v. Westport Ins. Corp., CA 03-859,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court improperly granted an insurer summary judgment and held that it was not required to defend an insured based on a pollution exclusion clause in an insurance policy; the clause was ambiguous and issues of fact existed.
|
|||||
| Ark. Power & Light Co. v. Miller, CA03-618,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, January 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where employee sustained neck injury and suffered from pain, restricted mobility, and insomnia, workers' compensation commission properly found employee sustained bodily impairment of 25 percent and 50 percent decrease in earning capacity.
|
|||||
| Barron v. Creative Foods, CA03-630,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, January 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation commission did not err in awarding injured worker permanent impairment rating of 20 percent to her left hand rather than 25 percent to upper extremity, as doctor did not elaborate on basis for determining motion loss.
|
|||||
| Fisher v. State, CA CR 03-323,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 7, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court followed the statutory procedure and prejudice was not presumed nor shown, the trial court did not err in permitting the jury in defendant's trial to see an atlas, which was extraneous information, during deliberations.
|
|||||
| Gillean v. Healthsouth of Fort Smith, Inc., CA03-551,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in dismissing heirs' wrongful death action where decedent was survived by half-sister who was an heir at law but who had not been named as plaintiff, and as estate had not been opened, the suit did not comply with statute.
|
|||||
| Greer v. State, CACR03-464,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding defendant had violated conditions of his probation, where he admitted to possession of controlled substances, a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment, and exclusionary rule did not apply to revocation hearing.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. State, CA CR 01-1327,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, January 7, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not object when court interrupted State's race-neutral explanation as to venire persons. Defendant failed to offer any additional argument to rebut State's and court's race-neutral explanations and failed to preserve Batson challenge.
|
|||||
| Liggins v. State, CACR03-650,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where theft victim told police that, upon arriving at storage unit, truck was blocking it and she saw defendant loading items in to truck, that created reasonable suspicion defendant committed theft and it was not error to deny motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| Miles v. State, CACR02-939,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, January 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly allowed a policeman to testify that defendant gave him a false name after he stopped the automobile in which defendant was riding. Asking defendant his name was a "routine booking question," exempted from Miranda's coverage.
|
|||||
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. |
