 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Moten v. State, CACR 00-788,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court committed no error in sentencing appellant to 10 years' imprisonment upon revocation of his suspended sentence. This prison term was within applicable sentencing guidelines for the felony of possession of a controlled substance.
|
|||||
| Pemberton v. State, CACR00-639,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court cautioned the appellant that it would consider the State's other concerns after rebriefing, and encouraged appellant to rectify any and all deficiencies in his abstract during the rebriefing process.
|
|||||
| Regions Bank & Trust, N.A. v. Stone County Skilled Nursing Facility, Inc., CA 00-147,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS TWO AND THREE, February 28, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment as to negligent supervision was reversed where quadriplegic victim of sexual assault questioned propriety of allowing male aides with little training to have intimate contact with helpless female patients without supervision.
|
|||||
| Schaefer v. McAllister, CA 00-354,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant had three months after the first publication of the notice of the opening of the estate to file his objection; therefore, appellant had until March 1, 1998. He waited until December 16, 1998, to file a letter of objection.
|
|||||
| Seamans v. Seamans, CA 00-491,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 28, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because custody action was an intrastate dispute, even though parties had divorced in another state, trial court had no authority to award ex-wife attorney fees under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
|
|||||
| Swan Lake Flying Serv., Inc. v. Apollo-Lakewood Aerial Servs., Inc., CA00-746,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where aerial crop-dusting company failed to insure plane for appellant's use, it breached an oral agreement. Appellant's performance of paying leasing fees was therefore excused.
|
|||||
| Swanner v. State, CA 00-973,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 28, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because accomplice-corroboration rule did not apply to appellant's juvenile adjudication, trial court properly admitted appellant's accomplices' testimony and denied appellant's motion for a directed verdict.
|
|||||
| Walls v. Walls, CA99-1477,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Incompetency adjudication as to will-maker merely created a presumption of incompetency, which was overcome by evidence from will-preparing lawyer as to the decedent's competence at the time he made his will.
|
|||||
| Whitney v. State, CACR00-327,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief in regard to the appeal of a probation and suspended sentence revocation which did not make a full factual and legal analysis. The court remanded for rebriefing and supplementation of the record.
|
|||||
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. |
