 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Atwood Distrib. v. Rendeluk, CA 01-850,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award to worker of temporary total disability benefits was affirmed, as worker's compensation commission was entitled to give greater weight to the opinion of the worker's treating physician, and there was no evidence she was able to work.
|
|||||
| Ball v. Langley, CA01-332,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the purchaser held himself out to disinterested third parties as the owner's partner, the trial court did not err in finding that a de facto partnership was created between the parties.
|
|||||
| Henley v. Britton, CA01-308,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a grant of recision of a real estate sales contract to purchasers; the decree was not final and appealable, because the decree did not address the claims as to all of the parties.
|
|||||
| Hilton v. State, CACR00-1248,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's driving and ambulatory behavior showed substantial evidence to sustain DWI and test refusal convictions; dismissal of offenses for which he was stopped did not invalidate stop. Consent form inaccuracy did not prejudice defendant.
|
|||||
| K II Constr. Co. v. Crabtree, CA 01-727,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court ordered an employer's attorney to revise his brief, where affirmance would be unduly harsh, and where the attorney erred by failing to include the opinion of an workers' compensation administrative law judge in his abstract.
|
|||||
| Lawyers Sur. Corp. v. Flowers, CA 01-413,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND FOUR, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported agency finding that used motor vehicle dealer licensing requirements were intended to protect public in retail transactions with used car dealers, not general creditors or business partners, like insured.
|
|||||
| Little v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., CA01-771,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There were no issues of material fact with regard to whether hospital employee's misrepresentation constituted fraudulent concealment; thus insurer's motion for summary judgment in medical malpractice lawsuit was appropriate.
|
|||||
| Meek v. Carter, CA01-866,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's entry of nunc pro tunc order that appointed the husband as administrator and ordered issuance of letters of administration was not erroneous since order was entered to make the trial court's record reflect what actually occurred.
|
|||||
| Ragsdale v. State, CACR00-704,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court in a terroristic threats case properly allowed testimony that defendant asked a third party whether he knew anyone who would be willing to kill his ex-wife for him, as the evidence was relevant to illustrate his state of mind.
|
|||||
| Starks v. State, CACR00-39,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and maintaining drug premises were reversed, as search of defendant's residence was unlawful, and, therefore, evidence should have been suppressed.
|
|||||
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. |
