 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beqiri v. State, CACR04-307,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-205(a)(3)(A) required that the amount of restitution defendant owed be determined by the preponderance of the evidence presented to the sentencing authority during the trial court's sentencing phase; no evidence was presented and showed only the incorrect recitation by the State of the amount of a dishonored check.
|
|||||
| Cameron v. State, CACR05-483,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss charges for theft of property in excess of $ 2,500 on ground that they were barred by statute of limitations in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-109(b)(2) because information was filed within three years of earliest unauthorized withdrawal from client's account that was made by defendant, an attorney.
|
|||||
| Douglas v. State, CACR 05-554,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although time period between arrest and trial was beyond limit set forth in Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.1, denial of defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds was affirmed. Issue was not preserved, as it was only at hearing on motion to dismiss that defense counsel first objected to excludability of periods of time concerning witness's absence.
|
|||||
| Fry v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA 05-271,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating a father's parental rights was upheld where the evidence showed that he had abandoned his children and that termination was in their best interest pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(2); by the father's own admission, he made no contact at all between 1995 and 2000, and beyond that engaged in infrequent telephone communications.
|
|||||
| Fusaro v. Zaio's Hardwood Floors, No. CA05-750,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 25, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeal of award of damages and attorney fees to appellee in a breach of contract action because appellant failed to timely file her appeal from district court judgment in circuit court, as required by Ark. Dist. Ct. R. 9(a). District court judgment became final and circuit court never gained jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Grady v. Lemons, CA 05-446,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court was unable to address mother's argument she should not have been required to pay father child support during his summer "visitation" and that court's order was in violation of Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 10, § VI because parties were joint custodians and mother had not argued below that they were joint custodians in name only.
|
|||||
| Inmon v. Heinley, CA05-799,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's arrests and his demeanor at trial caused appellate court to be greatly concerned he would, by his example, teach his son a confrontational approach to life that was certain to be self-destructive; crimes were not isolated instances, and trial court erred in finding mother failed to prove material change in circumstances regarding custody.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs., E05-187,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of an employee's claim for unemployment compensation benefits was reversed as there was not substantial evidence to find misconduct under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(2) as there was no evidence that the employee violated the employer's rules to manifest wrongful intent or evil design.
|
|||||
| Kelley v. State, CA CR 04-99,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of second-degree sexual assault of his 13 year-old step-daughter, in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-125, trial court did not err in excluding evidence that victim's mother continued to meet with defendant after child's allegation as insinuation mother's actions had a bearing on child's credibility was not relevant.
|
|||||
| Lindsey v. Foreman Sch. Dist. Risk Mgmt. Res., CA05-786,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission erred in adopting an ALJ's denial of workers' compensation benefits to employee where fair-minded persons could not have concluded that employee failed to introduce evidence of nature and type of chemicals that she used in her employment or evidence of the ability of chemicals to cause respiratory problems.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
