 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| $ 735 in U.S. Currency v. State, No. 05-400,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 12, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where it was unclear from the record that defendant had prepared whether she had renewed her motion for a directed verdict at the close of evidence as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(b), the issue was not preserved for review, the court of appeals' decision was reversed, and the grant of the petition for forfeiture was reinstated.
|
|||||
| Anderson v. State, No. CR 05-504,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because petitioner had not demonstrated that counsel had omitted a meritorious issue from the brief in an amended Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition for postconviction relief, there was no basis to compel counsel to file a substituted brief, and petitioner's pro se appeal from the trial court's denial of the motion was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Ball v. Phillips County Election Comm'n, No. 05-105,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 12, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court dismissed as moot plaintiff's appeal of an order dismissing her petition challenging the eligibility of a school board candidate because plaintiff's inability to have the candidate's name removed from the ballot was due to her decision to wait until eight days before the election to file her petition.
|
|||||
| Blackwell v. State, No. CR 98-456,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's request for coram nobis was denied because petitioner raised an identical claim as in a prior petition that had already been rejected and because petitioner failed to show that he had not completed all aspects of his sentence, including the payment of the fine and restitution.
|
|||||
| Bobo v. Jones, No. 04-01263,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 12, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an easement dispute, trial court did not err in issuing order for property owners over easement claimants because property was located in a certain county and evidence did not support claim of adverse possession or prescriptive easement. Easement claimants' laches claim could not be heard on appeal.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, No. CR 98-1180,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme Court of Arkansas found no cause to reconsider petition to reinvest jurisdiction in trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis as petitioner was aware of witness's testimony at time of trial and could have challenged it then; thus he had failed entirely to show that the State in any way withheld or suppressed evidence.
|
|||||
| Ellis v. State, No. CR 05-552,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 12, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial for rape, burglary, and terroristic threatening, trial court did not err in denying defendant's request for a directed verdict on charge of forcible compulsion because uncorroborated victim's testimony alone was sufficient evidence, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(1)(A).
|
|||||
| Herron v. State, No. CR 05-1062,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Love v. State, No. CR 05-1265,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because petitioner failed to perfect his appeal of the denial of his petition for postconviction relief and did not establish that there was good cause for his failure to do so, his pro se motion for rule on the clerk was denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
