 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beasley v. State, No. CACR99-825,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 2, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to transfer to juvenile court because the offenses were serious and of a violent nature.
|
|||||
| Cole v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., No. CA 99-540,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 2, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of mother's parental rights was affirmed as in the child's best interest, because mother had a drug problem, had taken no steps to rehabilitate herself, and the record showed the situation was not likely to improve.
|
|||||
| Cottrell v. Beard, CA 99-731,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 2, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellants could not enforce unambiguous reservation to repurchase an interest in land, which applied only if the grantees wished to sell the property, where transfer to appellees was by gift.
|
|||||
| Glass v. State, No. CACR 99-709,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 2, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fleeing alone was a sufficient basis for revoking the appellant's probation, because it violated condition one of the appellant's probation in that it carried a maximum jail sentence of thirty days.
|
|||||
| Hardin v. State, No. CACR 99-604,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 2, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminal appellant's convictions were affirmed on appeal because his sufficiency argument was not preserved for review, and appellant did not show an abuse of discretion by the lower court in denying his motion for mistrial.
|
|||||
| Hunt v. State, No. CACR 99-260,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 2, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported defendant's DUI conviction since, even eliminating short period of time required to transport defendant to station, there was more than 20 minutes of uninterrupted observation prior to testing.
|
|||||
| Hussey v. State, No. CACR 99-61,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 2, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported battery conviction, victim's criminal conduct was excludable since it had no relation to propensity for honesty, and prior consistent statement was hearsay; issues not preserved were not considered.
|
|||||
| Jarrett v. City of Marvell, CA CR 99-349,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 2, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment which found appellant guilty of violating town's garbage ordinance was affirmed because ordinance was constitutional in its enactment and as applied to appellant.
|
|||||
| Jordan v. State, No. CACR98-1502,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 2, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to proffer impeachment testimony or to request a limiting instruction as to an officer's testimony deprived appellant of any basis for appeal from convictions.
|
|||||
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. |
