 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Austin v. State, CACR 01-521,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer's testimony about victim's statements were proper under the excited utterance exception, as she was described as "hysterical" and "frantic" when she made them, and admission of the statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
|
|||||
| Baier v. Ark. Empl. Sec. Dep't, E01-48,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court held review board's denial of unemployment benefits was not supported by substantial evidence, as reasonable minds could not have concluded that employee's actions constituted intentional disregard for her employer's interest.
|
|||||
| Barnes v. State, CACR00-1472,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was returned to defendant's counsel to supplement the transcript on appeal to include voir dire, opening statements, and the closing arguments originally omitted, to address objections, and to file a substitute brief.
|
|||||
| Biles v. State, CACR01-00098,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly exercised its discretion by establishing that defendant's sentences were to run consecutively because prior to that order, the sentences had not been put into execution.
|
|||||
| Blakeley v. State, CACR01-356,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly revoked defendant's probation before defendant's probationary period expired, and constructively possessed contraband and knew the matter possessed was contraband.
|
|||||
| Buckner v. Lewis, CA01-441,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As tenants failed to exercise their option to purchase the leased premises before they were given notice to vacate, once they were given such notice, the option terminated, and they were properly evicted.
|
|||||
| Carrington v. State, CACR00-1418,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was substantial to convict defendant as agent identified defendant as person from whom he obtained methamphetamine and substance was identified as such. Jury admonition and apology from prosecutor cured any taint from improper argument.
|
|||||
| Howard v. State, CACR01-27,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal was without merit and counsel was permitted to withdraw where evidence was sufficient for robbery, breaking or entering, and theft of property convictions, as defendant removed tools from victim's garage and threw them at victim.
|
|||||
| Keys v. State, CACR 00-1444,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 16, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress custodial statement where it was not used as evidence by prosecution or by denying his motion to quash the entire jury panel where the motion had been withdrawn.
|
|||||
| Laster v. State, CA CR 00-250,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 16, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was insufficient to sustain inmate defendant's conviction for introduction of marijuana to prison because he had never left the prison grounds, and therefore, he did not introduce the marijuana to the prison.
|
|||||
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. |
