 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ferguson v. Tri-City Invs., L.L.C., No. CA-08-781,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 4, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rescission of contract based on constructive fraud and mutual mistake was proper because trial court's findings by clear and convincing evidence that a buyer did not know at time of closing that there were long-term leases on the property and that the existence of the leases was substantially material to the transaction were not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Gulley v. City of Mt. Home, No. CA08-795,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 4, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee failed to establish that he had a compensable injury under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-9-102(4)(D) (2002), which required that medical evidence be supported by objective findings, because the results of neuropsychological testing were not enough to satisfy the objective finding requirement for a compensable injury.
|
|||||
| Hammond v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., No. CA08-1015,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 4, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Henry v. Parker, No. CA08-253,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 4, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hodges v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., No. CA 08-933,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 4, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clear and convincing evidence supported a termination of parental rights because a sibling had been subjected to aggravated circumstances, under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(A), (4); such grounds for termination did not require the Department of Human Services to attempt to reunite the family, under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-338(c).
|
|||||
| Jones v. AAC Risk Mgmt. Servs., No. CA08-837,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 4, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee was not entitled to medical benefits beyond the date determined by the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission because the employee had reached maximum medical improvement from his slip and fall, had already received the series of epidural injections, and was undergoing pain management for his pre-existing condition.
|
|||||
| Posey v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., No. CA 08-892,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 4, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating a mother's parental rights to her child under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a) was upheld because she continued to use drugs on fairly consistent basis after receiving inpatient treatment and continued to use drugs in weeks immediately preceding termination hearing; record showed that her addiction was lifelong problem.
|
|||||
| Powers v. Adams, No. CA08-66,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 4, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father should not have been held in contempt based on an order requiring him to submit pleadings and lawsuits to a licensed attorney for review and certification because his defensive motions, which were filed only in response to a motion to show case, were not pleadings or lawsuits under Ark. R. Civ. P. 7.
|
|||||
| Rush-Bradley v. Van Ore, No. CA08-467,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 4, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in piercing corporation veil in furniture owners' conversion action against corporation's stockholder because stockholder was seeking to use corporate facade to shield herself from personal liability for disposing of owners' property and there was evidence that corporation failed to scrupulously follow corporate formalities.
|
|||||
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. |
