 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burton v. State, No. CR 05-494,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hairgrove v. Oden, No. 05-1360,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where two orders of extension in the case made no reference to the findings of the circuit court as required under Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 5(b)(1)(C), the Supreme Court of Arkansas remanded the case for compliance with the rules of appellate procedure; the court had made it very clear it expected strict compliance with Rule 5(b).
|
|||||
| Hillard v. State, No. CR 94-238,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner serving a life sentence for capital murder was not entitled to use the transcript to show that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence without bearing the cost of photocopying. His pro se motion to use the trial transcript for thirty days was denied.
|
|||||
| House v. Volunteer Transp., Inc., No. 05-203,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where injured driver had described injuries from 1999 accident by stating they were insubstantial but a 2000 demand letter indicated he had suffered injuries similar to those sustained in instant 2001 accident, demand letter was legitimately used for impeachment purposes at damages trial in 2004 and its admission did not violate Ark. R. Evid. 408.
|
|||||
| In re Proposed Supreme Court Rule 4-7, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jordan v. State, No. CR 05-1162,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| McClain v. State, No. CR 05-1329,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Miller Brewing Co. v. Ed Roleson, Jr., Inc., No. 04-1163,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported jury's finding that company violated Arkansas Franchise Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§4-72-201 to 210, where it did not deal with distributor in commercially reasonable manner and in good faith. Five-year statute of limitations of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-115 applied. Distributor's experts were allowed under Ark. R. Evid. 702.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. State, No. CR 05-1325,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court denied petitioner's pro se motion for belated appeal, pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 2(e), of order that denied his Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition for postconviction relief where he advanced no new arguments nor did he set forth any viable basis showing requisite good cause sufficient to allow his motion for belated appeal to be granted.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
