 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Malone v. Guynes, CA06-462,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grant of summary judgment in favor of lot owners in their action against a homeowner after he sought to build a duplex in a subdivision was appropriate because the rule against perpetuities did not apply and because the homeowner failed to show any prior breach of the restriction against multifamily dwellings.
|
|||||
| Morton v. State, CACR06-559,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for theft by receiving, contrary to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106(a), was supported by sufficient evidence where credit card was found in his wallet only nine days after it was stolen; because there was no explanation as to why he had a recently stolen credit card in his possession, knowledge was presumed under § 5-36-106(c)(1).
|
|||||
| Parker v. State, CACR06-840,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a circuit court improperly allowed testimony of probation violations that were not listed in a revocation petition, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-310(a)(3)(C), (b)(3)(C), there was no due process violation because defendant failed to challenge other grounds for revocation. The State only had to prove one violation.
|
|||||
| Rath v. State, CACR 06-650,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for a directed verdict was properly denied in a case involving sexual assault in the fourth degree under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-127 because substantial evidence supported the conviction based on the testimony of a child witness regarding an act of sexual intercourse, despite contrary testimony from defendant and his wife.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, CACR 06-719,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his suspended sentences, the trial court's finding that defendant possessed the weapon was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
|
|||||
| Toneerney v. Dir. of Workforce Servs. , E 06-222,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of an employee's claim for unemployment compensation benefits was inappropriate under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(1) (2002) because she was, at worst, negligent in the proper execution of her expense reports. The fact that she included itemized receipts demonstrated her lack of intent to deceive.
|
|||||
| Washington v. State, CA06-666,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court did not err in not vacating defendant's aggravated robbery conviction after he pled guilty to first-degree murder, first-degree battery, and aggravated robbery because even though crimes occurred during the same criminal episode, that fact alone did not establish that robbery of one victim was underlying felony for murder of another victim.
|
|||||
| Weston v. State, CACR06-452,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's revocation of defendant's probation for his unexcused failure to satisfy payment condition (that he pay court costs and fee for his DNA test) was proper as 1) his testimony that he did not have money and he had started a new job, on which he did not elaborate, did not excuse his nonpayment; and 2) he never asked for more time to pay.
|
|||||
| Worley v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos., CA06-450,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to an insurer in a dispute over UIM benefits because the stacking of benefits for four cars insured under a single policy was not allowed under the terms of the insurance contract, even though it was not prohibited by Ark. Code Ann. § 23-89-209(a)(3); further, this was not against public policy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
