 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aydelotte v. State, CA CR 02-1176,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 11, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of manufacturing methamphetamine and simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms because police discovered loaded weapons in the same out-building where methamphetamine had recently been manufactured.
|
|||||
| Battishill v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA03-611,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 11, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parents subjected their children to serious and potentially life-threatening neglect of children's medical needs and there was a limited likelihood of a successful reunification with the parents; thus, termination of their parental rights was proper.
|
|||||
| Beaird v. State, CACR03-928,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 11, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given that defendant failed to report to his probation officer as ordered and changed his address without the officer's approval, the trial court was entitled to find that defendant violated the terms of his probation.
|
|||||
| Cook v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA03-545,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, February 11, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported the trial court's termination of parental rights because the mother failed or refused to take advantage of the numerous services offered to her and she had a pattern of being involved in unsuitable relationships.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, CACR03-519,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 11, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly refused to submit sex offender defendant's proffered affirmative defense instruction to jury, as defendant's decision to subsist from the generosity of others did not excuse him from notifying the authorities of his whereabouts.
|
|||||
| Hudson v. State, CA CR 02-1283,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 11, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant's drug use was probative of his motive in committing the crimes, prior drug use evidence was admissible. His convictions for both first-degree murder and underlying felony of aggravated robbery did not violate Double Jeopardy Clauses.
|
|||||
| Jett v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., CA03-556,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 11, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in granting writ of assistance to company that purchased a property at a foreclosure sale and refusing to address tenant's equitable claims, where appellate court was unable to discern how tenant acquired an interest in house.
|
|||||
| McConnell v. State, CA CR 03-410,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS THREE AND FOUR, February 11, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence was not clearly erroneous, where report to police that driver was driving erratically, having narrowly missed bulldozer, supported a reasonable suspicion driver was impaired.
|
|||||
| Mills v. State, CACR 03-393,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, February 11, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When five-year suspended imposition of sentence expired without defendant having been arrested for violation of condition of his suspension and without arrest warrant having been issued for such violation, circuit court lost jurisdiction to revoke.
|
|||||
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. |
