 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Epperson v. Epperson, CA 05-548,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding that termination benefits were not marital property was appropriate where the appellate court agreed with prior case law that held that the eventual receipt of the benefits was too speculative for them to be considered marital property.
|
|||||
| Ervin v. State, CACR05-557,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bill of sale was properly admitted under Ark. R. Evid. 803 to establish value of stolen vehicle and conviction of theft by receiving property in excess of $ 500 but less than $ 2500 under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-36-106(a) and (e)(2)(A) (2005) was affirmed; inter alia, the witness supervised sale of State's vehicles and was present when vehicle was sold.
|
|||||
| Gullett v. State, CACR05-561,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err by allowing Breathalyzer results to be admitted into evidence as officers had not failed to offer the assistance required by Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-65-204(e); defendant failed to take his blood sample, drawn at a hospital, with him when he was released by police and he was aware that it was his responsibility to take sample with him.
|
|||||
| Indus. Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Lytle Mfg., L.L.C., CA 04-1351,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly gave the manufacturer a setoff under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 4-2-607(3)(a) where telephone calls from the manufacturer to the corporation constituted sufficient notice, and sufficient evidence showed that some of the chargers were nonconforming. Amount of damages awarded was modified to reflect credit given to manufacturer.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Delta Counseling Ass'n, CA05-669,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: WC Commission did not err in denying claimant's request for additional benefits and treatment because she failed to prove her emotional problems were causally related to a compensable spider bite injury as required by Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-9-113(a)(1) where she had history of sexual and physical abuse, car accidents, alcoholism, and other stressors.
|
|||||
| Keahey v. Plumlee, CA05-482,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division Two did not believe legislature intended Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 17-42-107(b), regarding capacity to sue for real estate commissions, to prohibit individuals from consummating their arbitration proceeding by having trial court confirm award and enter judgment thereon or they would be deprived of traditional remedies.
|
|||||
| Lowe v. Beard, CA05-567,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding that agreement between siblings to buy out a deceased sibling's share of a family farm was enforceable because the fact that sibling's heirs did not have the same right to seek an appraisal as a dissenting sibling did not mean that there was no consideration for the deceased sibling's promises in the agreement.
|
|||||
| McKinney v. McKinney, CA 05-381,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND TWO, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-14-107, there was a material change in circumstances warranting modification of a father's child support obligations where his petition in May 2004 showed that his income decreased from $1000 per month to $0 per month; under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-12-312, the trial court set an equitable amount of child support.
|
|||||
| Pierce v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-487,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in terminating the parents' parental rights where the order, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-341(b)(3), was based on clear and convincing evidence; the parents failed to obtain appropriate housing, maintain gainful employment, complete counseling, and address the abuse and neglect that led to termination.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. State, CACR05-626,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After defendant had requested second test, officer did not fail to comply with Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-65-204(e) because there was no indication defendant requested any other assistance after her acknowledgement she had insufficient cash to pay hospital's fee for the blood test; officer was not required to structure proposals or options for an arrestee.
|
|||||
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. |
