 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. State, No. CR 95-1042,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 18, 2007 Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for a writ of coram nobis was denied in a capital murder case because an inmate failed to show that any material exculpatory evidence was withheld or that a different outcome would have resulted; even though a witness admitted that he lied about the inmate's involvement in a robbery and murder, there was other inculpatory evidence.
|
|||||
| Bell v. State, No. CR 06-871,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 18, 2007 Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As petitioner's counsel failed to timely file notice of appeal, petitioner's pro se motion for belated appeal was granted; trial counsel admitted that he knew petitioner wished to file appeal and made his wish known to him during time allowed for filing notice of appeal and, under Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 16(a), in no event can counsel abandon appeal.
|
|||||
| Blanchett v. State, No. CR 06-879,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 18, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Defendant maintained that search was unconstitutional under Fourth Amendment and Ark. Const. art. 2, § 15; however, trial court did not err in denying motion to suppress because there did not need to be contemporaneous recording of testimony to support warrant.
|
|||||
| Cooper v. State, No. CR 06-1422,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 18, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's motion for rule on clerk was denied because the Freedom of Information Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-101 et seq. (2002), did not require the trial court or its clerk to provide photocopies at public expense; the trial court clerk's failure to provide a record was not good cause for tendering the record in an untimely manner.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, No. CR 06-1176,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 18, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A habeas petition did not meet the burden imposed by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(3) (2006) where the fingerprint evidence from a rifle scope and restaurant had already been tested. The petition did not meet Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(8) (2006) as the fact that fingerprints from the scope belonged to another had already been presented to the jury.
|
|||||
| Hancock v. State, No. CR 06-1133,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 18, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. Norris, No. 06-372,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 18, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A habeas court properly denied an inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on the imposition of consecutive sentences as the decision to impose such sentences rested solely within the trial court. The assertion that the sentence imposed on a murder charge exceeded the presumptive sentence was not cognizable in a habeas petition.
|
|||||
| Ligon v. Dunklin, No. 04-661,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 18, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding that the attorney's law license should be suspended for three years was proper under Ark. Model R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c) and 8.4(c) because the attorney had lied in an underlying deposition when questioned about whether he had previously represented an individual in legal proceedings.
|
|||||
| Marlar v. Daniel, No. 06-386,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 18, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In suit brought by property owners alleging that appraiser issued a report based on erroneously and negligently gathered information, a trial court did not err in granting appraiser's motion for summary judgment because there was nothing to indicate evidence of conduct that could be construed to rise to level of tort of outrage.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
