 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fowler v. McClinton Anchor/Ashland, Inc., CA06-459,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the evidence showed that a benefits claimant did not immediately report a knee injury, did not seek treatment from a company doctor as required, and allegedly told a co-worker that the injury occurred at his home, he did not meet the burden of showing an accidental injury arising from employment under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(i).
|
|||||
| Francis v. Protective Life Ins. Co., CA 06-241,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS TWO AND THREE, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving credit life insurance, an appeal was timely filed under Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 4(a) because the first judgment in the case did not comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 2 where the original of the facsimile-filed judgment was never filed with the trial court. The appeal was timely filed from a second judgment.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Target, CA06-392,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial basis existed for Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's denial of benefits on ground claimant failed to present objective medical evidence to establish a compensable injury, as required by Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-102(4)(D). Commission assigned greater probative value to physicians' opinions that claimant had not suffered acute injury.
|
|||||
| Laisure v. Zimmerman, CA06-548,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a child support case, judgment was properly entered for a mother when a father had paid $400 per month instead of the ordered $650 per month; even if the parties had agreed to such, this was unenforceable due to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-314(c).
|
|||||
| Mathews v. Mathews, CA05-1090,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Arkansas Supreme Court determined that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-101 et seq., applied to a case involving the modification of child support, an appellate court was required to reverse a circuit court's decision where the registration requirements under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-602 were not followed.
|
|||||
| Multistate Holdings v. Beall-Ladymon Corp., CA06-467,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to a lessee in a dispute over whether it was allowed to block a mall entrance in its apparel store because, after the lessee showed entitlement to such by the lease terms and an affidavit, an owner did not move beyond the pleadings and offer proof that a genuine issue of fact remained.
|
|||||
| Newton v. State, CACR06-564,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving the delivery of cocaine, even if a trial court abused its discretion by admitting a videotape of a second drug transaction to rebut defendant's testimony, it was harmless because defendant admitted to the elements of the crime under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401 where he took money, left, and returned with the substance.
|
|||||
| Pilcher v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA06-634,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a termination of parental rights case, a trial court erred by admitting a statement that constituted double hearsay under Ark. R. Evid. 805; however, a reversal was not warranted where no prejudice resulted; the trial court had made it clear that it intended to terminate the mother's rights prior to erroneously admitting the statement.
|
|||||
| Rose v. Ford, CA06-572,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In breach of contract dispute over agreement and lease of pawn and used car business, trial court erred in granting lessor injunctive relief because lessor did not raise in complaint a cause for equitable relief; however, lessee failed to show, pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 55, that trial court abused its discretion in entering default judgment.
|
|||||
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. |
