 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Atchison v. State, CA CR 98-1293,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, December 8, 1999, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At a sentencing hearing, the state did not erroneously present evidence of offenses for which appellant had not been convicted, because the presentence report provided the basis for the contention.
|
|||||
| Brandon v. State, No. CACR 99-267,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, December 8, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no record of lower court's ruling on motion to suppress, appeal court was without jurisdiction to hear appeal of conviction following defendant's plea.
|
|||||
| Brewer v. State, CA CR 98-935,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, December 8, 1999, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rape victims' testimony was admissible under pedophile exception since, inter alia, their abuse was similar in nature, they were of same family relationship to appellant, and the abuse always occurred in appellant's care.
|
|||||
| Brusstar v. University of Arkansas, No. CA99-559,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, December 8, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where employee had shown that her tasks were repetitive, but had not shown that her tasks were rapid, her injury was not compensable under the "rapid repetitive motion" theory.
|
|||||
| Buie v. Government Emples. Ins. Co., No. CA 99-269,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, December 8, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Granting of summary judgment for appellee insurer was proper because appellant insured failed to offer proof of genuine factual dispute since question of mistake in not designating daughter as primary driver was immaterial.
|
|||||
| Flowers v. Norman Oaks Constr. Co., CA 99-221,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, December 8, 1999, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The judgment, which denied appellant workers' compensation benefits, was reversed because appellee failed to prove that alcohol was "present" in appellant's system when he was involved in the work-related injury.
|
|||||
| Fulton v. City of Fayetteville, No. CA 99-394,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, December 8, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation claim was time-barred because statute of limitations began running seven years prior to filing when claimant obtained treatment for injuries which were first related to dealing with job stress.
|
|||||
| Gilchrist v. Director, Employment Security Dep't, No. E99-177,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, December 8, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment compensation benefits was reversed, because claimant had good cause to leave for reasons connected with the work.
|
|||||
| Housing Auth. v. Lively, No. CA99-543,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, December 8, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In unlawful detainer action alleging violation of lease's drug-related criminal activity provision, dismissal of complaint affirmed, because decision that appellant failed to sustain burden of proof was not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Kelsay v. Wise, No. CA98-1487,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, December 8, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for new trial was properly denied. There was no evidence that juror dishonestly responded or deliberately concealed information. Allegedly destroyed evidence was secondary and appellant could cross-examine appellee.
|
|||||
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. |
