 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Proposed Rules for Appeals in Dependency-Neglect Cases, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Bonds Fertilizer, Inc., No. 04-1213,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed a decision by the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission that the employee's request to obtain a factual determination from the Commission was barred by the two-year statute of limitations in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702 as the limitation period did not apply where the employee was not making a claim for benefits.
|
|||||
| Loveless v. State, No. CR 05-227,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in reducing defendant's original 240-month sentence for incest as both elements of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-26-202 (1997) were met; thus, defendant's act of incest was a class A felony, and his original sentence was within the class A felony range. As such, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify the original valid sentence.
|
|||||
| McClellan v. State, No. CR 04-1318,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a rape case, denial of defendant's motion for postconviction relief on ineffective assistance of counsel claims was proper as he did not show a basis under which his counsel could have successfully excluded defendant's statement, and failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance as their testimony would have been irrelevant.
|
|||||
| Morris v. State, No. CR 04-1387,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although trial court may have addressed the issues raised in petition for postconviction relief in determining that petition should be denied and dismissed, there was no indication that trial court intended to address issue of verification; thus, court denied petition for rehearing of its decision affirming the dismissal of postconviction petition.
|
|||||
| Parmley v. State, No. CR 05-141,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Parmley v. State, No. CR 05-141,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Peterson v. State, No. CR 05-1177,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a kidnapping and robbery case, defendant's appeal from the denial of his petition for habeas relief was dismissed as moot as it was not filed pursuant to 2001 Ark. Acts 1780 (codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 - 207); defendant filed his petition in a county other than the county in which he was an inmate.
|
|||||
| Posey v. St. Bernard's Healthcare, Inc., No. 05-383,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Amended complaint in parents' medical malpractice suit was not sufficient to toll limitations period where parents did not complete service of process as required by Ark. R. Civ. P. 4, but hospital waived service defense when it failed to raise defect in its response. Doctor did not waive defect as he never received amended complaint or responded.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
