 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Nooner v. State, No. CR 94-358,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 20, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner did not show any change in circumstances since his prior motions to lift his stay of execution were dismissed as moot on the ground that no stay was in effect, petitioner's instant motion to lift the stay of execution also was moot.
|
|||||
| Oliver v. State, No. CR 04-1077,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 20, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal of the denial of postconviction relief was denied because the petitioner did not file his motion attacking the judgment until more than five years after the court of appeals' mandate was issued.
|
|||||
| Parnell v. State, No. CR 04-1223,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 20, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's motion to proceed with a belated appeal was dismissed; petitioner's reliance on another incarcerated person or on a prison employee for legal advice was not an excuse for failing to conform to procedural rules.
|
|||||
| Polston v. State, CR 04-651,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 20, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A DNA collection statute applicable to a non-violent felon was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because a felon's expectation of privacy was diminished, the intrusion was not significant, and State had a substantial interest in solving crimes.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Plegge, No. CR 04-327,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 20, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for writ of mandamus, which contended that a judge failed to act in a timely manner on a pro se petition for postconviction relief, was denied as moot where a final order was entered denying the petition.
|
|||||
| Turner v. State, No. CR 04-1161,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 20, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
