 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. State, No. CACR99-390,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, December 15, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Victim's identifications of appellant and accomplice's confession defeated family alibi witnesses' credibility; despite unduly suggestive lineup procedure, in-court identification was reliable under totality of circumstances.
|
|||||
| Bedford v. State, No. CACR99-227,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, December 15, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminal defendant's conviction was affirmed because the prosecution had presented evidence to corroborate the criminal defendant's confession by the testimony of a witness and a medical examiner's testimony as to the cause of the victim's death.
|
|||||
| Bell v. State, CA CR 99-217,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, December 15, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Search for contraband under guise of weapons search violated appellant's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
|
|||||
| Cagle v. State, CA CR 99-343,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND FOUR, December 15, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecution was prohibited from commenting on appellant's silence, but question about whether appellant thought to tell police the truth was not the same as questioning appellant's silence and was not prejudicial.
|
|||||
| Cole v. State, CA CR 99-315,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND FOUR, December 15, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When appellant attempted to suppress contested evidence and the evidence was mentioned during a bench trial, no risk of prejudice existed because a trial judge was able to consider evidence only for its proper purpose.
|
|||||
| Delancey v. Dollar Gen., No. CA99-171,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, December 15, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant failed to establish that there was a substantial causal connection between her present ailment and her original compensable injury, a decision denying a request for additional medical treatment was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Devore v. Cloud Corp., No. CA 98-1307,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, December 15, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits because the determination that appellant's current back problems were not causally related to a prior compensable injury was supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Dillard v. Pickler, CA 99-333,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, December 15, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court quieted title in favor of appellees even though they did not enter into exclusive possession where they possessed color of title, paid property taxes, executed oil and gas leases, and sold timber from the property.
|
|||||
| Ellis v. State, No. CACR 99-1,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, December 15, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's first degree battery conviction was affirmed because the introduction of crime lab reports showing appellant had fired a shotgun resulted in no prejudice since he admitted firing a shotgun the night of the offense.
|
|||||
| Farrow v. State, No. CACR99-569,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, December 15, 1999, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court held a prospective juror's statement in voir dire concerning his possible prior arrest of appellant was not sufficiently prejudicial, when considered with trial court's cautionary statement, to warrant a mistrial.
|
|||||
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. |
