 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Area Agency on Aging v. Catlett, CA 03-883,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, February 18, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The claimant was properly awarded TTD benefits for her injury, where, despite her pre-existing degenerative spinal condition, her injury was clearly work-related, and substantial evidence supported the finding that it was compensable.
|
|||||
| Billingsley v. Smith, CA 03-778,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 18, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an instrument executed by a signatory constituted a check, he was not personally liable to several creditors because he merely executed the check in his capacity as an accountant for a company.
|
|||||
| Burchfield v. State, CACR02-1191,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, February 18, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Methamphetamine did not actually have to be produced from the manufacturing process to sustain a manufacturing conviction, and the evidence was sufficient to show the wife constructively possessed the drugs found in the husband's vehicle.
|
|||||
| First Baptist Church of Rose Bud v. Town of Rose Bud, CA03-629,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 18, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In church's appeal of finding of prescriptive easement over its property, judgment was affirmed; all elements of judicial estoppel were met and a prior decree's finding that there was an easement across the church's property was conclusive.
|
|||||
| Hayes v. Carroll County Judge, CA03-806,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 18, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A denial of workers' compensation benefits was affirmed because an employee's brief did not cite any authority; however, there was also no merit to the employee's claim that employment was the major underlying cause of a heart condition.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Billups, CA 03-748,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 18, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a doctor's expert witness was more than 100 miles away on the trial date, the trial court improperly refused to rule on the admissibility of the expert's deposition, taken on the day before, on the basis of a discovery scheduling order.
|
|||||
| Hyden v. Hyden, CA 03-527,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS TWO AND THREE, February 18, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a material change in circumstances occurred, a trial court erred in finding that it was bound by one of its prior orders concerning the split of a child's education expenses between a mother and father.
|
|||||
| N. Am. Ry. Serv. v. Henderson, CA03-872,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 18, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission found credible a former employee's testimony that he had pain in both legs after a work-related injury and that he improved after surgery, the Commission's award of additional benefits was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Nuehring v. State, CACR01-1341,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 18, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant failed to include items in his addendum necessary to the appellate court's determination of both its jurisdiction and the merits, the appellate court affirmed his convictions for failure to comply with appellate briefing rules.
|
|||||
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. |
