 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ratliff v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA08-1060,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 11, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights was proper under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a) because the parents were unable to provide an adequate home for their child and because they requested not that the child be returned to their care but that he be placed in the same state facility that their older children had been placed.
|
|||||
| Shouse v. Hegwood, CA08-625,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 11, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order awarding judgment to wife in her action challenging division of parties' marital home and debt in divorce decree was upheld because husband did not file timely notice of appeal from judgment pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 4(a); appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider all of trial court's rulings embodied in the original judgment.
|
|||||
| Superior Indus. & Crockett Adjustment v. Shaddock, No. CA08-766,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the employee suffered a compensable neck and back injury, the doctor released him to light duty work with a no-driving restriction. Because the employee could not drive to any job that he could perform, he was totally disabled temporarily for purposes of Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-9-519(e)(1).
|
|||||
| Vinson v. Dollar Gen. Stores, No. CA 08-743,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee's request for workers' compensation benefits for additional medical treatment, a targeted disc compression and discogram, was properly denied because the medical services were not reasonably necessary under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-9-508(a); the employee's most recent MRI no longer showed any discal defect at L4-5.
|
|||||
| Wortham-Huggins v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., No. CA08-1175,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where children were removed from deplorable living conditions, their parents failed to visit them, both parents failed to complete treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, the father failed to appear at the termination hearing, and the mother appeared but tested positive for cocaine, termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests.
|
|||||
| Zamora v. Ark. HHS, CA08-948,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 11, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where mother challenged the termination of her parental rights on two grounds but did not challenge the termination under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-341(b)(3)(B), the termination was affirmed, and termination under this ground did not require a showing that the Department of Human Services provided meaningful services to the parent.
|
|||||
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. |
