 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alamen v. State, CACR05-948,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction for second-degree sexual assault in violation of Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-14-125 as the evidence established that defendant was forty-eight and the victim was twelve at the time of the incident, and the victim testified that defendant touched her on her vagina.
|
|||||
| Alpha Ins. Co. v. Stapleton, CA 05-657,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the individuals as the appellate court found that an insurance company offered to settle the case for $ 25,000, the balance remaining under the policy, and the individuals' attorney's letter was an acceptance of the offer to settle for $ 25,000, the available limits of the policy.
|
|||||
| Am. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Drummond, CA05-847,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed the dismissal of an insurance company's petition for declaratory judgment because in construing the term "auto accident," the appellate court held that it did not encompass a situation in which injury was caused by the intentional firing of a gun from an automobile.
|
|||||
| Bailey v. Maxwell, CA 05-700,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a paternal grandmother's petition for guardianship was affirmed because the grandmother did not meet the qualifications under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 28-65-203(a) in that she failed to establish that she was not a convicted and unpardoned felon, and she was unsuitable under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 28-65-210 as she had been dishonest with the court.
|
|||||
| Barnes v. State, CACR05-959,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claim that the State was required to prove more onerous version of Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-13-211 was without merit as he failed to object to sufficiency of the information before trial; therefore, his challenges were barred. His claim could not prevail as he did not show he was convicted under statute that was no longer in effect.
|
|||||
| Colbert v. State, CACR06-19,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court dismissed defendant's appeal and rendered his motions on appeal moot because there was no right to appeal a guilty plea under Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 1, and none of the recognized exceptions applied.
|
|||||
| Cooper v. State, CACR05-818,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery and attempted robbery in violation of Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-12-103(a) and 5-12-102(a) were proper where circumstantial evidence was sufficient to identify defendant as the perpetrator, including testimony that defendant and his clothing matched information regarding about the crimes.
|
|||||
| Cutts v. State, CACR05-858,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The reduction of defendant's conviction to Class A misdemeanor of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle was proper pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-36-108 where defendant initially did have permission to use his girlfriend's vehicle for a few hours and he was regularly permitted to use the vehicle.
|
|||||
| DeShazer v. State, CACR05-903,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's forgery convictions, Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-37-201, where she did not offer a reasonable explanation of how she acquired the forged check; therefore, an inference that she committed the forgery or was an accessory to its commission was warranted and the court did not err in inferring defendant's intent.
|
|||||
| Guerrero v. OK Foods, Inc., CA05-865,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer after an employee lost his arm during a work-related accident because the exclusivity provisions of Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-9-105 applied and the intentional-tort exception did not apply.
|
|||||
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. |
