 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mitchell v. State, CA05-737,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in granting the State's motion to strike appellant's motion to dismiss a forfeiture action because the forfeiture action was properly commenced on October 13, 2004, and the record indicated that the confiscation report was received on April 1, 2003, clearly beyond the 60 days required by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-505(g)(2) (2005).
|
|||||
| One Bank v. I. F. Anderson Farms, Inc., CA05-855,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of a farm as to an estate administrator's negligence action where the administrator could not establish that decedent's accident was the result of a dangerous condition.
|
|||||
| Raybon v. Imperial Bldg. Contrs., Inc., CA05-863,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522(b)(1), the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission properly found that the employee did not sustain a wage loss in excess of his permanent-partial disability rating where he failed to pursue vocational rehabilitation and was capable of working but lacked motivation to do so.
|
|||||
| Roe v. Wright, CA05-880,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a grandmother had not been given an opportunity to present evidence to establish whether she met the criteria in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101, the appellate court held that the appeal of the custody and paternity orders by the mother and grandmother was not ripe for review.
|
|||||
| Scott v. State, CACR04-922,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court abused its discretion in determining that defendant was not indigent merely because his sisters helped him make bond and obtain his release from jail before trial; a defendant could not be forced to choose between posting bond and being able to obtain counsel.
|
|||||
| Sears v. Minick, CA05-715,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neighbors did not meet burden of proving that option agreement provided for conveyance of land without dwelling in the amount of $500 an acre; there was no error in refusal to adjust purchase option price and to order specific performance based on that value. No funds were transferred as consideration for conveyance from grandmother to grandson.
|
|||||
| Swink v. Lasiter Constr., Inc., CA05-563,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion under Ark. R. Evid. 609 when it allowed the company's attorney to question property owner about the extent of his felony conviction where the owner had already admitted that he was a convicted felon.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. State, CACR04-1020,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal of probation revocation was remanded for rebriefing pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2 as appellate court could not understand relevant facts and full procedural history on the record before it; appellate court had to understand whether trial court violated sixty-day rule in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-310 and other issues.
|
|||||
| Turner v. State, CACR05-912,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A search of a vehicle's exterior was within the scope of the consent granted by the driver and the police officer's observations of modifications underneath the bed of the truck, making a false compartment for the concealment of contraband, gave rise to probable cause to perform the more intrusive search of the vehicle.
|
|||||
| Warren v. Alexander Youth Servs. Ctr., CA 05-652,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission erred in relying upon Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-713(e) (2002) when denying an employee's claim for additional benefits because it was not in effect at the time of the employee's injuries. The employee's claim should be considered under the law that was in effect at the time of his 1985 and 1986 injuries.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
