 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hampton v. State, CACR04-362,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a continuance to locate a witness who would support his claim that the sex with the victim was consensual; defendant failed to supply an affidavit, as required by Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 16-63-402(a) (1987), showing the steps he took to locate the witness.
|
|||||
| Hilburn v. State, CACR 04-295,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's admission of testimony regarding a computerized check on a license plate did not violate the Confrontation Clause as the testimony was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and the Confrontation Clause did not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.
|
|||||
| Hinton v. State, CACR04-390,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Particularly in accordance with language of Ark. Code Ann. ¿¿ 5-12-103(a)(1) (1997) and 5-12-102(4)(B) (Supp. 2001) was not necessary for State to show object's actual use to inflict death or serious physical injury to convict defendant of aggravated robbery. His intended use of metal stick could be inferred from evidence before jury.
|
|||||
| Holland v. Gracy, CA04-951,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court properly denied the father's petition for change of custody of his two minor sons. The fact that the children were older and more mature did not support a finding that there had been a material change of circumstances since the last order of custody. Their desire to live with their father was not binding on the court.
|
|||||
| Huey v. Huey, CA 04-214,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS THREE, FOUR AND ONE, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the evidence showed that appellee former spouse experienced negative income for the two years, she was entitled to have her child support obligation reduced. The trial court erred by reducing her child support obligation to $ 24.00 per week without considering her quarterly income, as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 10.
|
|||||
| Jessup v. Jessup, CA 04-699,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed a trial court's award of $13,000 to a wife after her former husband defrauded her into selling him her car. The appellate court also held that as the husband did not object to the value given to the car at trial, he could not raise the issue on appeal.
|
|||||
| Kidwell v. State, CACR04-787,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for fleeing was proper where there was substantial evidence indicated that, in an effort to avoid being arrested by law enforcement officers, defendant purposely drove his car in a manner that created a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to other persons.
|
|||||
| Kiesling v. Smith, CA03-177,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellants' argument on appeal did not challenge the circuit court's finding, the issues raised by appellants were moot because any decision would afford them no relief.
|
|||||
| Mathis v. Hudson, CA04-724,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was not entitled to a prescriptive easement to run his water line on defendant's property as the plaintiff had never been granted an easement, the easement was not apparent upon ordinary inspection, and use of the easement was not open, notorious, and uninterrupted as required by Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 18-11-106 (Repl. 2003).
|
|||||
| McDaniel v. Four Hollands, Inc., CA04-120,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judge failed to indicate basis for his conclusions that cost to complete project equaled balance due on contract and that neither party was entitled to recover. Parties made no request for findings of fact or conclusions of law per Ark. R. Civ. P. 52(a) as to grounds for judge's decision. Given conflicting evidence, decision was supported by proof.
|
|||||
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. |
