 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Magnet Cove Sch. Dist. v. Henderson, CA04-764,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported decision that second injury fund was not liable for employee's work-related back injury because there was no evidence establishing that there was a combination of the effects of her compensable work-related injury with any preexisting disability to yield greater disability than that arising from her back injury alone.
|
|||||
| Maupin v. Pulaski County Sheriff's Office, CA04-727,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 16, 2005, Opinion delievered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the evidence that the injury occurred before the claimant's work shift started, and while he was outside the sheriff's department jurisdiction in which he was employed, the workers' compensation commission reasonably concluded under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-9-102 that his injury was sustained when employment services were not being performed.
|
|||||
| Partridge v. Lochridge Mobile Homes, Inc., CA 04-414,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's finding that there was no contractual relationship between the purchasers and the seller was irrelevant to the issue of conversion, which was a common-law tort action for the wrongful possession or disposition of another's property, in light of the finding that seller repossessed purchasers' mobile home without any authority to do so.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. Dir., E04-336,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 16, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-10-532(b)(1)(B), requiring worker to repay the overpayment of benefits would violate the principles of equity and good conscience where there was substantial evidence that wife's sources of funds was extremely limited, due to the fact that she was attending school and household expenses exceeded the household income.
|
|||||
| Purvis v. Purvis, CA04-721,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order awarding a divorced mother and father joint custody of their minor child was in error because there was no clear indication as to whether the parties were able to cooperate in raising the child; an award of joint custody would be improper if cooperation between the parties was lacking.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. State, CACR 04-193,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine was affirmed; there was sufficient evidence that defendant had constructive possession of tool and chemicals to make methamphetamine found in defendant's vehicle.
|
|||||
| Sherman v. State, CACR04-364,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain a delivery of cocaine conviction, Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-64-401, where a confidential informant called defendant to set up a buy, the conversation was recorded, an officer identified defendant's voice, and officers observed defendant complete the transaction.
|
|||||
| Summers v. State, CA CR 04-257,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's drug convictions were improper where the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 16-81-203 (1987) based simply on an informant's statement that defendant had just bought some matches. Thus, the initial stop and the subsequent search of defendant's home were illegal seizures.
|
|||||
| Verdier v. Verdier, CA04-1132,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, February 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a son's appeal of an order awarding summary judgment to his father, based on the parental-immunity doctrine, in a negligence action, the court ordered rebriefing pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2(b)(2) because the son's addendum did not contain the final order that was entered by the trial court.
|
|||||
| Wallace v. West Fraser South, Inc., CA 03-1335,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS TWO, THREE AND FOUR, February 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fact that claimant was coming off break when his injury occurred did not determine compensability; instead, since he was returning to work, it was activity that directly advanced his employer's interests and constituted employment services. Thus, under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (2001), his workers' compensation claim was improperly denied.
|
|||||
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. |
