 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beyer v. Woodridge Land Co., CA00-769,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Purchasers of real property in a subdivision wrongfully interfered with express easements in a warranty deed by building a fence on the identified easement property.
|
|||||
| Brady v. State, CACR 99-992,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's double jeopardy rights were not violated because he was prosecuted only once for numerous traffic offenses as the circuit court's trial was merely an appeal from the municipal court and not another prosecution.
|
|||||
| City Slickers, Inc. v. Douglas, CA 00-681,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND TWO, March 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Both courts had not addressed the issue of whether appellee misappropriated trade secrets because it was found unlikely that appellant could prove the documents were trade secrets within the meaning of the Act.
|
|||||
| Donald v. State, CA CR 00-677,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in sentencing a defendant for driving while intoxicated after the probation officer failed to prepare the statutorily required presentence report where the defendant had been willing to participate in the report's preparation.
|
|||||
| Dormany v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., CA 00-508,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A treating doctor's use of range of motion tests and the AMA guidelines to determine the percentage of a worker's disability could have constituted sufficient objective findings to support a determination of her physical impairment.
|
|||||
| Dunc v. State, CACR00-215,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A circuit court properly denied transfer of a juvenile's capital murder and kidnapping charges to juvenile court, but the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to try the juvenile for a felony theft charge.
|
|||||
| Goodson v. Goodson, CA00-647,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly accepted the findings of a court appointed surveyor when the parties to a boundary suit submitted contradicting testimony by surveyors, but the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to the winning party.
|
|||||
| Hayes v. Advanced Towing Servs., CA 00-654,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 7, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Whether appellees were interfering with appellant's business should have been decided by the jury because reasonable people could differ as to whether appellees' conduct was fair and reasonable. Directed verdict was reversed.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Director, E 00-249,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 7, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court could not determine de novo on appeal whether estoppel applied and prevented unemployment benefits claimant from being denied benefits, so matter was remanded back to administrative agency for determination.
|
|||||
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. |
