 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Erin, Inc. v. Circuit Court, No. 06-1058,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2(a)(8) and (a)(5), a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by a company and its president was denied without prejudice where they failed to file a complying abstract, brief, and addendum. The company and president were directed to file the requisite documents and rebriefing was ordered.
|
|||||
| Get Rid of It Ark., Inc. v. Hughes, No. 06-1255,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A writ of prohibition was granted because a circuit court was wholly without jurisdiction to decide whether the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act applied since there was a conflict over the narrow exception to the exclusivity doctrine; moreover, there was no adequate remedy since a motion for summary judgment was not subject to appeal.
|
|||||
| Griffen v. Ark. Judicial Discipline & Disability Comm'n, No. 06-1392,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judge's petition for writ of mandamus to admit the public and news media to his formal probable-cause meeting was granted where, pursuant to Ark. Const. amend. 66, a hearing was contemplated before disciplining a judge by reprimand or censure; the judge had waived confidentiality and there was no countervailing reason to close the formal meeting.
|
|||||
| Haywood v. State, No. CR 06-1369,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 was untimely, as appellant appealed from sentence, instant court's mandate was issued on November 13, 2002, after affirmance of sentence, and appellant filed Rule 37.1 petition in trial court on July 24, 2006. Appellant filed his petition almost four years after date of mandate.
|
|||||
| Helena-West Helena Sch. Dist. #2 v. Circuit Court, No. 06-1284,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a decision to grant a temporary restraining order regarding the expulsion of two students could have been appealed under Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 2(a)(6), a petition for a writ of certiorari was not granted. Moreover, a writ of prohibition was not appropriate since an order had already been entered in the case.
|
|||||
| Ligon v. McCullough, No. 04-1395,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to abate $ 500 fine imposed from the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct (Arkansas) was stricken in its entirety, as intermingled into his substantive request for abatement, defendant used unnecessary, strident, and disrespectful language towards plaintiff, who represented committee as Executive Director and attorney.
|
|||||
| Mosley v. State, No. CR 06-887,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant's pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 was denied as being untimely filed, his belated motion for reconsideration failed to establish any ground for reconsideration of the order of dismissal.
|
|||||
| Motes v. State, No. CR 07-29,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the public defender's motion to withdraw as defense counsel on appeal did not state whether she was provided a state-funded secretary, the state supreme court could not determine whether she qualified for relief from defendant's representation in light of Ark. Code Ann. § 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B).
|
|||||
| Motes v. State, No. CR 07-29,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, January 25, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
