 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ark. Dep't of Corr. v. Bailey, No. 06-674,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application of Sex Offender Registration Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-901 et seq., to defendant did not violate due process where by entering plea by reason of mental disease or defect, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-312, he acceded to allegation that he engaged in conduct charged. Assessment was rationally related to State's interest in protecting public.
|
|||||
| Barnett v. State, No. CR 00-1384,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate, who was convicted of capital murder, sought a writ of error coram nobis. Inmate asserted prosecutor withheld information about inmate's alleged confession to his cell mate. Writ was denied because inmate failed to show grounds for reinvesting jurisdiction in trial court to consider petition.
|
|||||
| Boyd v. Sharp County Circuit Court, No. 06-553,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a writ of prohibition was not granted where a dismissal should have been entered due to a lack of service under Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(i), a writ of certiorari was granted since a circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction by proceeding instead of dismissing the case; the remedy of appeal was inadequate since a show-cause order was involved.
|
|||||
| Bunch v. State, No. CR 06-1384,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel in action seeking postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 was denied, as Rule 37.1 was civil in nature and appellant failed to make a substantial showing of merit.
|
|||||
| C.C.B. v. Ark. HHS, No. 06-554,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving placement on a child maltreatment registry, appellant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Ark. Const. art. 2, § 8 were not violated by the fact that an administrative law judge and a prosecutor came from the same agency; moreover, the standard of evidence was not changed to clear and convincing.
|
|||||
| Crawford v. State, No. CR 06-692,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Crossno v. State, No. CR06-849,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the circuit court granted petitioner's request to pursue a belated appeal under Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 2(e), his newly assigned counsel failed to timely file the record in the case because he claimed he did not receive timely notice of the assignment. A rehearing was necessary for a full determination of the issues.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, No. 06-825,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a habeas corpus proceeding, the denial of the inmate's motion for reconsideration was appropriate because, to the extent that the inmate argued that his due process rights were violated since he was denied access to the courts to bring his constitutional arguments, his argument failed. He was provided access at trial and on direct appeal.
|
|||||
| Ellis v. Reynolds, No. 06-1119,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A writ of prohibition was denied in a case challenging the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-7-202(b) because a circuit court had jurisdiction to hear a motion relating to estate administration due to Ark. Const. amend. 80, § 6(A), and the constitutionality of a statute could have been heard by a circuit court and appealed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
