 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Shaw v. State, No. CR 05-236,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant failed to make a prima facie case under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(b)(1) by failing to place his identity at issue before the trial court, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's petition for scientific testing. As such, the trial court did not err when it did not hold an evidentiary hearing.
|
|||||
| State v. Herndon, No. CR 05-612,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court dismissed the State's appeal following the dismissal of defendant's charge for violating Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n Code § 15.05 under Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 3(b), but in the future Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-107(a) would be construed to allow such appeals because the act of violating such a regulation was a misdemeanor.
|
|||||
| Watts v. State, No. CR 05-1164,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from the denial of his petition for habeas relief was dismissed as he failed to meet the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-203 by failing to establish that identity was in question at trial, or that the fingerprint and DNA technology was not available when he was convicted.
|
|||||
| White v. Ark. Capital Corp., No. 05-337,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a misappropriation of "public funds" case, where the taxpayer challenged appropriation acts as illegal exactions in violation of Ark. Const. art. V, § 29, trial court did not err in applying defense of good faith because acts were presumed valid and penalties should not be imposed on state officials or citizens for doing likewise.
|
|||||
| Young v. Norris, No. 05-1167,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal of the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed and the motions on appeal were moot, as the inmate could not establish any grounds for an appeal as the trial court had jurisdiction to charge him for Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(1)(C)(i) where the statute of limitations had not yet run.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
