 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ivy v. Ivy, CA04-216,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not clearly err in awarding a husband child custody as the appellate court deferred to the trial court's decision to give weight to the fact that awarding custody to the husband meant that the children would remain in their community.
|
|||||
| Justice v. Thomas, CA04-493,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision not to award damages despite finding in favor of plaintiff was supported by evidence vehicle sustained minimal damage, injured party did not believe she was injured at scene, and she returned to pre-wreck activities after two months.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, Inc., CA 04-591,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 26, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence supported the state workers' compensation commission's finding that the employee did not prove total and permanent disability related to an accident that occurred at work.
|
|||||
| Nazaretta v. State, CACR03-27,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While there was no corroborating evidence of the involvement of the third party, enough "other evidence" existed to connect defendants with the crime of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine.
|
|||||
| Ogburn v. State, CACR04-616,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's notice of appeal specifically referenced that it was from an order denying his motion to suppress, rather than the judgment and commitment order, the notice of appeal was untimely.
|
|||||
| Pearson v. State, CACR 04-288,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nature and immediacy of a university's concern about presence of drugs and alcohol in student dorm rooms was clear and presence of such items in plain view during an initial, uncontested, search of defendant's room warranted a more intrusive search.
|
|||||
| Phillips v. Union Pac. R.R. , CA 04-602,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 26, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the employee's cause of action accrued at the time the railroad failed to report the proper number of service credits, his complaint was filed outside the five-year statute of limitations period for written contracts.
|
|||||
| Pope County Quarries, LLC v. Standridge, CA04-447,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mining company had breached lease with sellers by failing to pay for dirt already removed; the company ceased operating the quarry in November 2001 and failed to make annual payment to extend the agreement.
|
|||||
| Potocki v. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr., CA04-539,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's finding that a claimant suffered from reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) where one doctor diagnosed the claimant with RSD and a second doctor deferred to that diagnosis.
|
|||||
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. |
