 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| LeClere v. State, No. CACR99-294,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 26, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's right to a speedy trial was violated where 430 non-excludable days had elapsed before he was tried. His felony convictions were reversed and the case was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Murray v. Lovett, No. CA99-677,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The lower court did not err in finding that prescriptive easement, established by appellees' predecessors-in-interest, was not extinguished when appellants' predecessor relocated it, because he did so for his own convenience.
|
|||||
| Newburn v. State, No. CACR 99-729,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, January 26, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's rape and sexual abuse conviction was affirmed, since the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of other acts of sexual misconduct that he committed against the victim over a three-year period.
|
|||||
| Richard v. Richard, No. CA 99-671,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 26, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Photograph and sketch of workers' compensation claimant's hand depicting severed fingers provided substantial evidence to support award of scheduled benefits.
|
|||||
| Slaughter v. State, CA CR 99-655,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury imposed sentence of zero fine and imprisonment was not invalid, since zero was lower limit on sentencing range for class D felony, however court imposed jury's alternative 18 month sentence recommendation instead.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, No. CACR 99-381,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 26, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The officer saw the marijuana sale, appellant tried to conceal drugs in the trunk, cocaine was seized in the trunk, and appellant admitted possessing marijuana, so substantial evidence supported the convictions involving marijuana and cocaine.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Taylor, No. CA 99-542,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where it was against the interest of deceased's estate for him to tell someone that his wife was his partner and to tell a bank employee that he wanted the business to go to his wife, the hearsay statements were admissible.
|
|||||
| Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Brazel, No. CA 99-703,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported agency finding that worker in meat processing plant with carpal tunnel syndrome sustained compensable injury arising out of employment and had temporary total disability.
|
|||||
| Wainwright v. State, No. CACR99-771,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant convicted of first-degree battery failed to state which element of the crime was the basis for a sufficiency of evidence challenge and waived the issue; the victim's statement was properly admitted as an excited utterance.
|
|||||
| Whitham v. State, CA CR 99-287,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant failed to establish that he had standing to contest the legality of the search since there was no evidence presented that appellant had any other purpose in the searched apartment aside from his illegal activity.
|
|||||
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. |
