 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jackson v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., No. CA 99-695,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 23, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where workers' compensation appellant's abstract on appeal was flagrantly deficient and the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's opinion displayed a substantial basis, denial of relief was affirmed.
|
|||||
| McKenzie v. State, CA CR 99-471,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 23, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to suppress upheld; police had reasonable cause to arrest appellant, which gave them authority to search him for evidence; testimony from police officer was not hearsay as it was not offered for its truth.
|
|||||
| Motsenbocker v. State, No. CACR99-698,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 23, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellant failed to produce a reasonable excuse for his failure to satisfy the conditions of probation, the court affirmed the revocation of his probation.
|
|||||
| Oliver v. State, No. CACR 99-950,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where State met its burden of proving appellant did not meet a condition of probation by appellant's admission to not paying fines as ordered, revocation of probation was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Potts v. State, No. CACR99-817,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of appellant's probation was upheld, where the reviewing court could not say it was clearly against preponderance of the evidence that appellant failed to obey all state laws.
|
|||||
| Reed v. Reed, No. CA99-760,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 23, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce action, alimony was affirmed as appellant husband resigned from a job that was providing greater income for his family, and appellant was awarded the marital home as his separate property.
|
|||||
| Springs v. State, No. CACR99-715,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 23, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court ordered a rebriefing where appellant's counsel failed to comply with the requirements for withdrawing; counsel's bare no-merit conclusion did not adequately substitute for appellant's right to appellate review.
|
|||||
| Vittitow v. Central Maloney, Inc., CA 99-882,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee was not authorized to bring a claim seeking to establish her employer as an extra-hazardous employer; the Workers' Health and Safety Division was the only proper party to bring such a claim against an employer.
|
|||||
| Welch v. State, No. CACR 99-609,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 23, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellee State, it could not be said that appellee failed to offer sufficient proof to sustain the charges against appellant.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Ward, No. CA99-502,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff, who sought specific performance, proved that the parties entered into oral contract for sale, rather than lease, of land. Plaintiff's partial performance of contract removed it from operation of statute of frauds.
|
|||||
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. |
