 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Shropshire v. State, CACR06-218,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to suppress statements given to police was properly denied in a drug case because there was nothing to suggest that initial unwarned questioning that occurred when defendant arrived home during the execution of a search warrant was calculated to undermine the subsequent warnings given.
|
|||||
| St. Joseph's Mercy Health Ctr. v. Lamb, CA06-665,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission did not err in permitting a second change of physician for the employee under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-514(a)(3)(A)(iii) as there was substantial evidence that the first physician did not act in a manner consistent with being the employee's physician.
|
|||||
| Ward v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Co., CA06-515,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A degloving injury to the genitals and scrotum was not substantially occasioned by the use of drugs under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(B)(iv)(a); even though a positive drug test gave rise to a presumption, that was rebutted by the testimony of an employee's co-workers that he did not appear to be under the influence at any time.
|
|||||
| Ward v. State, CACR06-444,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though a prosecutor was not allowed to amend a felony information under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-85-407 in a theft of property case to show the value of a vehicle stolen since that changed the class of the crime, there was no reversible error because the sentence imposed was less than the maximum for either the amended or the original charge.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
