 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Advanced Auto Parts v. Lee, CA05-784,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Without disregarding the language of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-113(b)(1), court held that there was sufficient evidence of physical problems, such as muscle spasms and unsteady gait, that were related to work-related injury to support Workers' Compensation Commission's finding that employee did not reach maximum medical recovery until certain date.
|
|||||
| Butler v. Labor Finders, CA05-640,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of dependency benefits to a mother under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-527(c) and (i) because the evidence showed that while the deceased son did give the mother $57 a month, she also allowed him to live rent free and use her car. Thus, the mother was not dependent on the son so as to entitle her to benefits.
|
|||||
| Byme, Inc. v. Ivy, CA 05-28,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE, TWO AND FOUR, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute over a real estate contract, a court erred by failing to direct a verdict for the realtor where the contract with the seller clearly operated to relieve the realtor of its obligations under the contract if the seller's employer (offering relocation services) failed to perform, and it was undisputed that the employer failed to perform.
|
|||||
| Byndom v. State, CACR05-499,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported defendant's convictions for rape of his girlfriend's daughter, in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(1), where victim's testimony presented scenario of sexual encounters that occurred because of defendant's insistence, threats, and use of physical abuse, despite victim's protests and desire that activity stop.
|
|||||
| Cottage Cafe, Inc. v. Collette, CA05-734,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4), Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's finding that employee's injuries were compensable was proper given employee's extensive testimony and testimony from coworkers and physician. Commission had to determine respective liability of insurers based on finding as to when employee became aware of injury.
|
|||||
| Cox v. Vernon, CA05-749,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The provisions of Ark. R. Civ. P. 8(a) did not limit a driver's recovery to $75,000 simply because she failed to include a demand for an amount in excess of the federal jurisdictional amount in her pleadings; the case could not be removed to federal court where there was a lack of diversity of citizenship between the parties.
|
|||||
| Criswell v. State, CACR05-154,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court was unable to consider defendant's appeal, because the abstract and addendum in his brief did not satisfy the requirements of the Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2. The abstract was merely a photocopy of the questions and answers that appeared in the circuit court transcript. Several documents were missing from the addendum.
|
|||||
| Edrington v. State, CA 05-776,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The adjudication of the juvenile as a delinquent juvenile based on a finding that he committed the offense of battery in the third degree was proper pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(b) because he failed to renew his motion for dismissal; thus, he waived any question regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
|
|||||
| Eoff v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-235,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father's parental rights to his child were properly terminated pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) because child was adjudicated dependent-neglected and was out of father's custody for at least 12 months. During the brief period of time that the father was not incarcerated, he used methamphetamine and failed to obtain employment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
