 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Knott v. Tooraen, CA99-1170,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony that a privacy fence was constructed on a presumed property line and remained for twelve years was sufficient to support a finding a boundary line by acquiescence.
|
|||||
| Lyons v. State, CACR 99-1091,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant failed to renew his directed verdict motion, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, until the jury had retired to deliberate, the renewal was untimely and the trial court's denial of the motion was proper.
|
|||||
| MDH Builders, Inc. v. Nabholz Constr. Corp., CA99-1317,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because mutual assent was manifested, general contractor accepted subcontractor's bid, and subcontractor's vice-president had authority to enter into contract, judgment for general contractor for breach of contract affirmed.
|
|||||
| Maxwell v. State Child Support Enforcement Unit, CA98-1090,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in determining that Arkansas Child Support Enforcement Unit had standing to challenge validity of court's earlier order approving settlement agreement between father and mother to terminate child support.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. Headley, CA 99-1320,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because trial court failed to appropriately dispose of a third-party defendant's counterclaim in suit involving property dispute, alleged purchaser's appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Morrilton Sec. Bank v. Kelemen, CA 99-1108,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Increases in interest rates were provided for in the original loan; they were not a material alteration; therefore, intervenor was still obligated as a surety and summary judgment in intervenor's favor was improperly granted.
|
|||||
| Poston v. State, CACR99-1093,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No meritorious appellate issues existed in probation revocation where trial court properly limited appellant's cross-examination of witnesses, properly admitted demonstrative evidence, and properly excluded hearsay evidence.
|
|||||
| Scott v. State, CACR99-1054,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellant alleged that his confession was involuntary based on threats from third party and his deteriorated physical condition, trial court properly denied his motion to suppress, as State actor did not threaten him.
|
|||||
| Stephenson v. Tyson Foods, CA99-1104,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because no evidence showed employer gave employee change-of-physician form after injury or that employee's herniated discs did not occur at time of original injury, denial of workers' compensation benefits reversed.
|
|||||
| Vanesch v. State, CACR99-1018,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though the trial court erred in admitting appellant's juvenile adjudication during trial's sentencing phase, he was not prejudiced by the error because his sentences did not exceed the maximum non-habitual sentences.
|
|||||
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. |
