 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bateman v. City of Paragould, No. CA99-389,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 12, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of city was affirmed, because city, a city of the first class, could only abandon a dedicated easement by following methods set forth in the applicable statute.
|
|||||
| Davenport v. State, No. CACR 99-849,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 12, 2000, Opinion Delivered and Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where fact finder had sufficient evidence to convict appellant of receiving stolen property, appellant's challenge was without merit and appellant's counsel was allowed to withdraw.
|
|||||
| Dawson v. State, No. CACR99-775,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 12, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's rape conviction was affirmed because evidence was sufficient to convict him of offense of rape; defendant's counsel's motion to withdraw was granted because appeal was without merit.
|
|||||
| Dye v. State, CA 99-366,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 12, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there were no coercive elements involved in the statements made by two minors prior to being given Miranda warnings, the decision to deny their motion to suppress was not clearly against the preponderance of evidence.
|
|||||
| Eaton v. Dixon, CA 99-265,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS THREE AND FOUR, January 12, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order awarding father primary physical custody of the child was affirmed, because mother had become unable to care for the child and awarding custody to father was in the best interests of the child.
|
|||||
| Green v. State, No. CACR 99-370,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 12, 2000, Opinion Delivered and Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's conviction for raping two young boys was affirmed because it was not abuse of discretion to allow the eldest, a four-year-old at the time of trial, to testify.
|
|||||
| Lee v. State, No. CACR99-852,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 12, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant committed several violations of his probation and was required to serve his sentence for each count of incest; counsel's motion to withdraw was granted because appeal was without merit.
|
|||||
| Marion v. Director of State Empl. Sec. Dep't, No. E99-216,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 12, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits because she left her last work for good cause related to her work when it would have been futile to repeat her grievances about her supervisor.
|
|||||
| Parker v. State, No. CACR99-603,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 12, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was reasonable for the officer to search a file box in criminal defendant's vehicle based on his belief that the vehicle had been stolen and that information concerning the owner of the vehicle could have been contained in the box.
|
|||||
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. |
