 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abdin v. Abdin, CA05-169,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly denied petition by a testator's brother to probate an Israeli will as a lost will where the brother failed to prove by strong, cogent, and convincing evidence, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 28-40-302, that the testator executed the Israeli will. The testator's widow and a business associate testified that the signature was not his.
|
|||||
| Clark v. Readnour, CA05-599,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court correctly dismissed landowners' action against one neighbor where service was made on her guardian but not on the neighbor individually as required by Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). There was no evidence presented to trial court as to whether road was public or private; thus, the neighbors did not demonstrate that court lacked jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Clark v. State, CACR02-975,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court violated Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-125(e) when it answered questions from jury without summoning it into open court; however, State overcame the presumption of prejudice where the record showed the answers were put in writing, made a part of the record, approved by defense counsel, and trial judge had no direct communication with jurors.
|
|||||
| Donathan v. State, CACR05-704,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where items used to manufacture methamphetamine were found in two garbage bags on defendant's property, the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture, a violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-403 (Supp. 2005).
|
|||||
| Drummond v. State, CACR05-110,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion for mistrial following testimony elicited by the State of other crimes attributed to him in violation of Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) because defendant "opened the door" to otherwise impermissible inquiry and failed to object to questionable testimony in a timely manner.
|
|||||
| Floyd v. State, CACR05-58,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's probation was properly revoked where officer's testimony at hearing was not hearsay under Ark. R. Evid. 801(c) as it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Evidence was sufficient to show that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation and the State proved at least one violation.
|
|||||
| Gee v. Harris, CA05-712,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court dismissed as moot an individual's appeal from an order of protection that was issued against him as the order had expired by the time the matter came up for review, there was no legal remedy for the individual, and any judgment rendered would have not practical legal effect upon an existing legal controversy.
|
|||||
| Henderson v. Lennox Indus., CA05-00719,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission could find that, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-514(b), the employee knew that treatment by her physician was unauthorized and not the responsibility of the employer or insurer. Award of temporary total disability to employee was proper as employee was within healing period and unable to earn wages.
|
|||||
| Marshall v. State, CACR04-1146,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for rape, in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(1)(B), was upheld where the victim's testimony about her physical symptoms, when coupled with the testimony of the other witnesses, provided circumstantial evidence of penetration, which was an element of both rape by sexual intercourse and by deviate sexual activity.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. Wright, CA05-730,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant filed answer that generally denied allegations of plaintiff's complaint, including that she was negligent. Thus, fact that she did not file a counterclaim was not an assertion of fact, and therefore, she could not be impeached on that point. Thus, the trial court did not err in precluding plaintiff's cross-examination on latter issue.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
