 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. State, No. CR 04-621,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 26, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 where he failed to demonstrate prejudice by counsel and his allegations showed that counsel and defendant disagreed on trial strategy; as there was no actual conflict, trial court was not obliged to investigate defendant's claims of conflict.
|
|||||
| Diemer v. State, No. CR05-302,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 26, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's life sentence and convictions for rape, kidnapping, and burglary in violation of Ark. R. Evid. 403 as the element of defendant being in prison when he killed his cell mate could have been stipulated to, but defendant's conviction was affirmed as the error was harmless.
|
|||||
| Goodin v. State, No. CR 05-1232,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 26, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon defendant's appeal of order denying his motion for postconviction relief after he pled guilty to a controlled substance offense, court denied as moot his motion for extension of time to file his appellate brief where petition for postconviction relief was untimely pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c); petition was filed 91 days after judgment.
|
|||||
| Green v. State, No. CR 06-03,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 26, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court dismissed an inmate's Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition for postconviction relief where the petition was not filed within 90 days of the final judgment as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c).
|
|||||
| Holland v. State, No. CR04-735,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 26, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-102, court had not erred in admitting his confession; transcript of interview revealed no assurance was given regarding defendant being tried under juvenile code and, to the contrary, showed confession was given of his own free will and no promises were made.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, No. CR 05-932,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 26, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Loveless v. State, No. CR 05-648,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 26, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant failed to follow proper procedure with regard to writ of error coram nobis by not obtaining the supreme court's permission before proceeding in circuit court; there was no ground for reconsideration of pleadings. Under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, appellant failed to submit brief and did not seek extension of time to file brief.
|
|||||
| Pro-Comp Mgmt. v. R.K. Enters., LLC, No. 05-459,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 26, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2(b)(3), abstract and addendum were deficient; inter alia, transcript of hearing consisted of 57 pages, while abstract of hearing consisted of 3 1/2 pages and review of record revealed counsel for both parties engaged in several colloquies concerning arguments raised on appeal which were not included in abstract.
|
|||||
| Quality Optical of Jonesboro, Inc. v. Trusty Optical, L.L.C., No. 05-251,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 26, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for, inter alia, interference with a contractual relationship or business expectancy as Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105 indicated that a three year statute of limitations applied and the cause of action arose in January 1999 but the complaint was not filed until August 2002.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
