 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bond v. Lavaca Sch. Dist., CA 00-236,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Limitations statute did not apply; appellee's supplemental salary schedule violated statutes by paying less than contract's daily rate for extra work and not including appellant's additional job; fact issue remained as to days appellant worked.
|
|||||
| Brewer v. State, CACR00-420,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Two policemen testified appellant was aware of his rights and voluntarily waived them; the trial court chose to believe their testimony. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision denying appellant's motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| Carvin v. Bell, CA 00-581,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because trial court's order did not hold ex-wife in contempt but stated that if she did not make required payments by a certain date she would be held in contempt, order was not final and appeal of order was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Collier v. State, CACR00-348,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Witness testimony that he was asked, after a shooting, to retrieve a gun from a car and hide it, and that it matched appellant's gun, who thanked him for hiding it, was relevant and highly probative of appellant's involvement in the murder.
|
|||||
| Edens v. Superior Marble & Glass, CA00-689,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the workers' compensation commission arbitrarily disregarded the physical therapist's notation regarding muscle spasms, the appellate court reversed on that point.
|
|||||
| Hodge v. State, CACR 00-793,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgments were affirmed; though no violence was perpetrated against any person during time 17-year-old youths committed multiple crimes, there were many other factors supporting denial of their requests to transfer their cases to juvenile court.
|
|||||
| Jorden v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., CA 00-819,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 28, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Status as the biological father of the three children appellee was trying to take into emergency custody made appellant the putative father under the juvenile code, and thus, required him to be made a party to dependency-neglect proceeding.
|
|||||
| Koontz v. State, CACR 00-613,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: "Chain of custody" requirement did not mean every person who came in contact with evidence had to account for it at trial; rather, it was only necessary the evidence was not tampered with and no evidence of tampering existed in the instant case.
|
|||||
| McKibbin v. State, CACR 00-404,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Terroristic threat convictions were affirmed; appellant's challenge to his convictions based upon sufficiency of the evidence was procedurally barred because he failed to abstract from trial record documents that were critical to his challenge.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Hof, CA00-274,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in dismissing breach of contract claim against contractor. No meeting of the minds was reached between the parties on an alleged modification; thus homeowner was not liable to pay increased costs.
|
|||||
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. |
