 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Harris v. State, CACR00-563,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence was whether there was substantial evidence to support the conviction, of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion.
|
|||||
| Howe v. State, CA CR 00-143,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress drug evidence seized in traffic stop improperly denied where pat-down search was not conducted with probable cause, and impound of vehicle was not justified for failure to produce proof of insurance.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. State, CA CR 00-595,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's claim trial court erred in revoking his probation because he was not provided with written notice of the terms of conditions added in a 1998 order was meritless because revocation was based on violation of 1996 probation order.
|
|||||
| Oak Hill Manor v. Arkansas Health Servs. Agency, CA 00-170,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter its order, appellants could not perfect its appeal. Thus merits of their argument could not be decided due to lack of appellate jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Ownbey v. Mountain Home Pub. Schs, CA00-569,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reasonable minds could have found medical evidence did not preponderate in favor of conclusion claimant's physical condition or limitations resulted from fall at work, so there was substantial basis supporting denial of workers' compensation claim.
|
|||||
| Reid v. Frazee, CA 00-353,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial compliance, as opposed to strict compliance, with statutes which required trial court to obtain the consent of the adoptive father and his adoptive 10-year old son was valid in appeal by biological father who opposed the adoption.
|
|||||
| Ryles v. Alexander, CA00-761,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in suit to quiet title to island property where issues remained as to superior title, chain of title, validity of prior deeds.
|
|||||
| Spencer v. Stone Container Corp., CA 00-538,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A workers' compensation claimant's request for a second doctor's opinion as to her injury was deemed a request for additional compensation for that injury, and as such it tolled the statute of limitations to file her claim.
|
|||||
| Strom v. State, CACR00-137,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying appellant's mistrial motion even though it sustained defense counsel's objection to a line of improper questioning as appellant did not make motion at earliest opportunity, but waited another six questions.
|
|||||
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. |
