 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Backus v. Howard, No. CA 08-814,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 25, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellants were depicted in a photograph in a journal published by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, they filed a complaint in Arkansas for invasion of privacy. They did not challenge the decision dismissing the complaint under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Barron v. State, No. CACR06-506,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 25, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine based on testimony from two witnesses who participated in the crime, he never presented the witnesses as accomplices to the judge; therefore, the trial court's failure to give an instruction on accomplice testimony under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-111(e) was not preserved for review.
|
|||||
| Bratton v. Wilson, No. CA 08-642,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 25, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Title was properly quieted in favor of two purchasers because they satisfied the common law elements of adverse possession, and they showed they held color of title to the property for at least 7 years and paid taxes, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 18-11-106; a warranty deed issued after a redemption deed was sufficient to convey color of title.
|
|||||
| Chaney v. Kern, No. CA 08-517,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 25, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a negligence suit, appellant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to give his proffered jury instruction on following too closely based on Ark. Code Ann. § 27-51-305(a). Because appellant's proffer appeared to have been made for the first time after the jury retired to consider its verdict, the issue could not be address on appeal.
|
|||||
| Cunningkin v. State, No. CACR 08-880,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 25, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: During defendant's trial for the delivery of a controlled substance, he moved for dismissal at the close of the State's case; when the trial court reopened the evidence, defendant could no longer rely on the renewed motion made at the end of his case. Pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c), his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was waived.
|
|||||
| Dugan v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co., No. CA 08-676,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 25, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the insureds made a late payment on their automobile insurance policy by delivering a check to their local agent, there was an issue of material fact as to whether the insurance company bound itself to reinstate coverage. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in the insured's declaratory action under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-106.
|
|||||
| Ellenberg v. Burnett Gibbs Motors, Inc., No. CA08-839,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 25, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a workers' compensation case, a benefits claimant was not entitled to receive temporary total disability benefits because his healing period under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(12) had ended; it did not resume when the claimant began receiving treatments for pain for a compensable neck and back injury.
|
|||||
| Flash Mkt., Inc. v. Norman, No. CA08-960,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 25, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was properly awarded additional medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits after she injured her knee because reasonable minds could have reached conclusion that the disputed treatment was reasonably necessary under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) in connection to injury; root of symptoms was not apparent until she had surgery.
|
|||||
| Gates v. State, No. CACR08-877,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 25, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where two witnesses testified that they recognized defendant as the person seen in the security video cutting the lock and committing a theft, the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of defendant's suspended sentences even though the video recording from the security camera was not introduced into evidence.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. State, No. CACR08-326,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 25, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in denying defendant's petition to seal and expunge her criminal record because no judgment of conviction was entered; she was entitled to discharge pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-311(a). Once proceedings were dismissed, she had option to have records of her arrest sealed and criminal records expunged under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-905.
|
|||||
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. |
