 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beverly Enters. - Ark., Inc. v. Jarrett, No. CA06-330,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The entry of a default judgment in a case alleging medical malpractice, negligence, wrongful death, and statutory violations was not set aside under Ark. R. Civ. P. 55(c)(1) because, even if a corporation's legal department was busy, this could have been viewed as a failure to secure adequate help, rather than as an instance of excusable neglect.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA06-508,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision to terminate a mother's parental rights was based on clear and convincing evidence under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3) where the mother and baby tested positive for crack cocaine at birth, the mother was unable to care for other children, she had been incarcerated for kidnapping the child during visitation, and she was still using drugs.
|
|||||
| Conner v. State, CACR06-567,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order revoking defendant's probation was upheld where there was no merit to his claim that he was not provided with the written terms and conditions of his probation; the record contained a copy of the conditions of suspended sentence or probation that were signed by defendant, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-303(g) (Supp. 2005).
|
|||||
| Craig v. State, CACR06-170,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant fired a shotgun at a car with two people inside, and it was totalled after a crash, there was sufficient evidence to support convictions for aggravated assault under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-204(a)(1), criminal mischief under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-38-204(a)(1), and committing a terroristic act under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-310(a)(1).
|
|||||
| Edgin v. State, No. CACR05-1348,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant appealed his conviction of fourth offense DWI, the trial court's denial of his motion for a mistrial was not a frivolous issue; there was a question as to whether the State improperly elicited testimony of defendant's prior arrests. Counsel was not entitled to withdraw under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j).
|
|||||
| Freshour v. Abney, No. CA06-380,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In child visitation dispute, trial court properly determined father should be allowed unsupervised visitation because no material change of circumstances was required, as previous visitation orders were only temporary. Trial court did not err in ordering father to pay only half of mother's lying-in expenses, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-110.
|
|||||
| Gary v. Maverick Transp., Inc. , CA06-516,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order that employee was able to continue working after he sustained injury was overturned and case was remanded where Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's opinion was so utterly inadequate as to preclude meaningful review. Commission premised its denial of benefits upon two inconsistent findings of fact going to essential elements of claim.
|
|||||
| Holsing v. Dir. of Workforce Servs., No. E 06-209,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Worker sought unemployment compensation benefits after he left employment with employer. Appellate court determined that worker quit with good cause, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513(a)(1) because worker was subject to harassment, which included being forced to urinate in front of four people, two of whom were members of the opposite sex.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA06-448,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The termination of the parents' parental rights to their three children was appropriate because the parents repeatedly failed to conform to the requirements of their case plan, which equated to the failure to bring "permanency" to the lives of their young children. That constituted the "harm" contemplated by Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(a).
|
|||||
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. |
