 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Schiller v. State, CACR 05-471,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's argument that the cocaine seized by police should have been suppressed as it was the result of an illegal stop was not preserved for review because it was not raised before the trial court; because defendant's arguments on appeal were not specifically made at trial, the appellate court did not need to address them.
|
|||||
| Schilling v. Excel Corp., CA 05-807,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding against the employee in a workers' compensation action was proper where the Workers' Compensation Commission correctly denied the employee's motion to supplement the record pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(c)(1)(A)-(C)(i). The new evidence was not relevant and would not have changed the determination.
|
|||||
| Smith v. O'Reilly Auto., Inc., CA05-740,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed a decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission, which concluded that a claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered a compensable injury, where the Commission made erroneous factual findings involving relevant medical evidence that it considered in reaching its decision.
|
|||||
| Swan v. State, CACR04-795,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress crack pipe that was found in vehicle in which he was passenger because officer's initial approach of vehicle was valid under Ark. R. Crim. P. 2.2. Although defendant might have been illegally seized when officer ordered him out of vehicle, driver of the vehicle gave consent to the vehicle search.
|
|||||
| Tyson v. State, CACR 05-752,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State presented sufficient evidence of penetration, as defined by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(1)(A) and (B), to support defendant's conviction for the rape of his 11-year-old cousin where victim testified that he grabbed her, put her into van, pulled her clothes down, pulled his penis out, got on top of her, "hunched" her, touched her, and hurt her.
|
|||||
| Wheeler v. State, CACR05-639,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendants' motion to suppress because the omission in the search warrant affidavit that the officer who signed the affidavit was not the officer who observed the drug transaction did not render the warrant invalid under the Franks doctrine.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Rector Phillips Morse, Inc., CA05-379,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's dismissal pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 37 of home buyers' complaint against title companies for excessive fees was not error because buyers failed to comply with trial court order directing them to provide good faith responses to discovery requests, which left companies without information to prepare for class certification hearing.
|
|||||
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. |
