 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Johnson v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., CA 99-1358,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant did not reproduce the surveillance videotape or attach to it copies of his abstract. Thus, court could not review the facts and could not review appellant's arguments, as they required the videotape's consideration.
|
|||||
| Johnston v. Curtis, CA 99-941,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 10, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statute of frauds did not bar oral modification of real estate contract when parties had partially performed on modified contract; buyers' failure to perform was not excused by inability to obtain satisfactory financing terms.
|
|||||
| Judicial Discipline & Disability Comm'n v. Thompson, 99-1443,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent judge was ordered removed from office because he continued to practice law after his election and placement in office; the fact that he did not appear before the courts of the state was not material.
|
|||||
| Kelly v. State, CACR 99-949,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's decision revoking offender's probation was affirmed, where the decision was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
|
|||||
| King v. State, CACR99-1222,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State presented substantial evidence from which jury could infer that appellant had constructive possession of controlled substance. Trial court did not err in admitting evidence or in denying motion for directed verdict.
|
|||||
| Kirby v. State, CACR 98-1442,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony amounted to substantial evidence to support finding that, while representing to be armed with deadly weapon, appellant immediately threatened to employ force with purpose of committing theft.
|
|||||
| LeClere v. State, CA CR 99-294,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court improperly granted appellant's motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial; appellant's attorney filed a reply brief that was misleading; thus, court issued an order referring him to Committee on Professional Conduct.
|
|||||
| McCadney v. State, CACR99-1266,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury was not required to believe all of appellant's statements about what happened; appellant had opportunities to retreat, and did not use all reasonable means to avoid using deadly force.
|
|||||
| Pettus v. Holcomb, CA99-1265,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal of dismissal of fraud action as to appellee dismissed because lower court order was not final, as record did not indicate appellants' claims against other defendants were disposed of and no certification was made justifying immediate appeal.
|
|||||
| Pittman v. NW Village Partners, Ltd., CA99-1190,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination agreement between owners and project managers of shopping center development unambiguously released owners from liability related to contract dispute regarding private drive access.
|
|||||
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. |
