 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bark v. Rheem Old Republic Ins. Co., No. CA08-1054,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's request for attorney fee under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-715 on the ground that Arkansas Second Injury Fund had controverted his compensation rate was properly denied because had there been no disagreement between employee and employer as to the proper compensation rate, none of the litigation that occurred in case would have been necessary.
|
|||||
| Curry v. State, No. CACR08-866,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a rape case, a trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear defendant's confession that he had held another child down in a garage because this incident was nothing more than a prior bad act under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b); the pedophile exception did not apply since the garage incident and the present rape allegations were dissimilar.
|
|||||
| Garrett v. State, No. CACR08-607,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of delivery of a controlled substance within a thousand feet of a church, because the informant testified that a video recording accurately showed him getting the crack from defendant, and it was up to the jury to determine the credence of the informant's testimony.
|
|||||
| Hoffman v. Suskie, No. CA08-851,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of the claimant's motion for new trial under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59 was affirmed, because the jury was presented testimony from which they could conclude that the claimant did not suffer any damages proximately caused by the motor-vehicle accident.
|
|||||
| Landmark Novelties v. Ark. State Bd. of Pharm., No. CA08-543,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Moreno v. Knowles, No. CA08-708,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Adoption decree was affirmed, because the proof that the father failed significantly to communicate with the child without justification for more than a year under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-207(a)(2)(i), was clear and convincing.
|
|||||
| Oliver v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., No. CA08-1150,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Proctor v. Vickers, No. CA08-615,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ritchie v. Stewart Props., LLC, No. CA 08-894,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appellate court was unable to review a decision from the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission regarding a claim for further medical treatment under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a) because there were no findings to support a conclusion that treatment of a knee injury past the healing period was not reasonable and necessary.
|
|||||
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. |
