Arkansas, January, 2005, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Arkansas - January 26, 2005

Ballinger v. Heritage Log Homes, Inc., CA04-333, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Summary judgment was improperly granted to a shipper and a truck driver in a negligence case because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the driver's gratuitous unloading actions played a part in causing a bystander's injuries.

Search Cases for Free

Biggers v. State, CACR04-399, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where defendant's abstract of testimony was not in the first person and partially relied on a videotape that was not abstracted, the appellate court could not reach the merits of the claims; defendant was ordered to rebrief the appeal.

Search Cases for Free

Cantrell v. State, CACR03-881, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain a burglary conviction where defendant forced his way into the victim's home, "asked" if he could perform oral sex on her, forcibly removed her underwear, and forced her to lie with her legs against her chest.

Search Cases for Free

City of Fort Smith v. Pense Enters., CA04-366, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Refusal to submit jury instruction regarding prescriptive easement was not in error given insufficient evidence. Jury's valuation of property was between parties' respective evaluations and was found to be a proper value.

Search Cases for Free

Frazier-Hampton v. Hesterly, CA 04-280, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free

Overview: The gravel road that ran across appellant's property to appellee's property was properly declared to be a county road. The county had maintained and improved the road for longer than seven years, and the road had been a mail route for over 20 years.

Search Cases for Free

Gamble v. State, CACR04-397, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm where the complainant testified that defendant accosted her with a black pistol and she did not have to know the statutory definition of a firearm.

Search Cases for Free

Grissom v. State, CACR04-694, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where defendant failed to address his argument to a trial court that as a parent, he was not included in the class of persons addressed by the sexual assault statute, it could not be reviewed on appeal.

Search Cases for Free

Hammond v. State, CACR 04-537, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: In order to prove that defendant committed second-degree forgery, the State was not required to show that defendant had a purpose to defraud the victim. No specific party had to be the object of defendant's purpose to defraud.

Search Cases for Free

Harper v. Ark. Rehab. Servs., CA 04-377, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: A finding against the claimant in his workers' compensation action was proper where the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission did not violate the law-of-the-case doctrine and did not err in failing to impose a 20-percent penalty.

Search Cases for Free

Ignatiuk v. Ignatiuk, CA04-607, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: A mother was required to submit a revised abstract of the record in connection with an appeal because her abstract was not in the first person and consisted simply of 98 pages of excerpts of questions and answers taken from parts of the record.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal