 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Morgan v. State, No. CR 04-1088,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 24, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the circuit court issued a ruling on the issues in the inmate's petition for postconviction relief, the inmate's remedy was to file a timely notice of appeal and proceed with an appeal from the order. The motion to modify was an unauthorized petition for rehearing or reconsideration and not permitted by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(d).
|
|||||
| O'Marra v. MacKool, 04-1052,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 24, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Requirements of Ark. Code Ann. § 18-12-402 were not satisfied as homeowner did not join in deed with his wife when she conveyed her interest in property. Pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 60, trial court was without authority to modify original divorce decree. Homeowner was not party to original divorce; thus, issue and claim preclusion did not apply.
|
|||||
| Porter v. State, No. CR 04-1229,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 24, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prisoner's appeal was dismissed because his Ark. R. Crim. P 37.1 petition for postconviction relief was not filed within 90 days of the date the judgment was entered on his guilty plea and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was not addressed to the county in which he was being held in custody.
|
|||||
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. |
