Arkansas, February, 2005, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Arkansas - February 2, 2005

Grand Prairie Water Users Bd. v. Cmty. Water Sys., CA04-604, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Appellate court dismissed water users board's appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of a water systems company because the summary judgment did not dispose of all issues in the case and was not designated as a final order.

Search Cases for Free

Hamilton v. Jones, CA02-749, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Verdict for defendant in truck accident case was proper where accident reconstruction expert's testimony was admitted because speed of defendant's vehicle was in dispute and expert testimony helped jury understand evidence.

Search Cases for Free

Johnson v. State, CACR04-258, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed; where defendant responded he had been shot by a clerk while trying to rob a store in response to an officer's question when the officer saw him lying on the ground, the statement was spontaneous.

Search Cases for Free

Johnson v. State, CACR04-612, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where defendant went into his house after an argument, retrieved the gun, and shot the victim, he acted with the purpose to cause the victim's death. He was convicted of first-degree murder. His motion for a directed verdict was properly denied.

Search Cases for Free

Keisler v. State, CACR04-354, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Witness testified that he arrived at stabbing scene and defendant was present with blood dripping from his hand and that defendant concealed knife in his own vehicle. Evidence showed defendant purposely stabbed victim and did not act in self-defense.

Search Cases for Free

Lomas Fin. Corp. v. Peacock, CA04-599, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where the employee injured her back at work, the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission properly awarded the employee reimbursement for fusion surgery. The employee's treating physician opined that the surgery would help recurrent back pain.

Search Cases for Free

Love v. State, CACR04-247, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant's claims on appeal were unclear and not specific, and his appeal was without merit, thus defense counsel's Anders motion to withdraw was granted.

Search Cases for Free

Martin v. Knollmeyer, CA03-967, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Plaintiffs failed to include their response to defendant's motion and the pleadings relating to the parties' discovery issues in the addendum and did not abstract summary judgment motion. Thus, court ordered substituted abstract, addendum and brief.

Search Cases for Free

Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Reagan, CA 04-631, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 2, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Appellate court affirmed a judgment that held that an Indiana child support order could not be registered in Arkansas and enforced against a father, as the registration had not been filed within 10 years of the child turning 18.

Search Cases for Free

Orick v. State, CACR 04-128, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: There was substantial evidence to support a jury's finding that defendant intended to deliver methamphetamine because he possessed a firearm, scales, and more than 57 times amount necessary to give rise to statutory presumption of intent to deliver.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal