 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Methodist Nursing Home v. Travis, CA04-676,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the employee advised her employer's interviewer of her previous back problems and lifting restrictions, the employer could not have relied on any false representation in making its decision to hire the employee. The employee was not barred from seeking workers' compensation benefits for a low-back injury she sustained on the job.
|
|||||
| Morris v. Griffin, CA04-250,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying the motorist's motion for a new trial because there was substantial evidence from which the jury could have determined that either the other driver was not negligent or that the damages allegedly sustained by the motorist were not proximately caused by the driver's negligence.
|
|||||
| Pickney v. L. A. Darling Co., CA04-332,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed that an employee was not entitled to wage loss benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-505(a) (2002) as the employer did not return to the employee work because the employee was part of a company-wide layoff and the employee had the least seniority in the supervisory positions.
|
|||||
| Scott v. Estate of Prendergast, CA04-211,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, February 23, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court made no findings whatsoever as to its reasons for setting the amount of attorney fees; therefore, the trial court had to analyze the fee award in accordance with certain factors and make findings that would allow the appellate court to review the fee award.
|
|||||
| Sharp v. State, CA CR 04-113,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS TWO AND THREE, February 23, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After she was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting the victim in the home of his estranged wife, babysitter was awarded new trial because court erred in denying her request for jury instruction on justification. It was for the jury, not the trial court, to make a factual determination of whether the babysitter was justified in her actions.
|
|||||
| Small v. Kulesa, CA04-342,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 23, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As 50 U.S.C.S. § 525 (now codified at 50 U.S.C.S. app. § 526) tolled the statute of limitations for the time within which a husband and wife had to bring an action to set aside a default judgment, trial court erred in denying a motion to set aside the default judgment as action was filed within two years of husband's retirement from the military.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. State, CACR04-556,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the child victim gave a detailed account of defendant's actions during each incident, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction of rape in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103 (a)(1)(C)(i) (Supp. 2003). Although the child did not provide specific dates, he did describe the residence in which each rape occurred.
|
|||||
| Vick v. State, CACR04-634,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appellate court did not reach the merits of defendant's argument that a trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because his argument was not properly preserved for appellate review. In his directed-verdict motions, defendant failed to specify how the State's case was deficient as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1.
|
|||||
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. |
