 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Higgins v. State, CACR05-779,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A witness's testimony did not violate Brady where leniency had not been offered by the State at the time the witness testified, defendant's counsel failed to inquire as to whether the witness expected leniency in exchange for his testimony, and the State's case was not entirely dependent on the witness's testimony.
|
|||||
| Hodge v. Cozad, CA05-729,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was properly awarded to plaintiffs on defendant's counterclaim for adverse possession in a quiet title suit where defendant did not address testimony that her predecessor-in-title did not have any cattle on disputed property after 1994 or 1995; period from when defendant purchased property to when suit was filed was less than seven years.
|
|||||
| McFarlin v. Sherrill, CA05-1063,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed a trial court's modification of a visitation order as the court had not changed custody, and based on the father's testimony that the mother had remarried, had had two additional children, and had threatened to take away his visitation rights, there was a material change in circumstances.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Centerpoint Energy Res. Corp., CA05-841,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there were claims remaining by an individual against some of defendants, and the individual did not obtain an Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1) certification, the appeal was dismissed as it was not a final judgment or decree under Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 2(a)(1).
|
|||||
| Nava v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-345,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly terminated a mother's parental rights, Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341, where the record was replete with evidence of horrible incidents witnessed by the children while the mother was in their lives, and the mother effectively abandoned the children and left them in an environment that caused severe emotional trauma.
|
|||||
| Osborne v. State, CACR05-267,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Different penalties imposed by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-403 for possessing drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine did not make subdivisions imposing different penalties unconstitutionally vague because statute provided fair notice of prohibited conduct. Trial court did not err in refusing to provide additional jury instructions.
|
|||||
| Phillips v. Matrix Serv. Co., CA05-772,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4), Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's decision to deny an employee benefits was supported by substantial evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(c)(3) provided strict deadline and stated that any evidence not given to opposing party by deadline would only be admitted at discretion of ALJ.
|
|||||
| Renny's Bail Bond Co. v. State, CACR 05-986,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's order denying a bond company's motion to modify an order forfeiting a bond pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 60 was affirmed because the company did not secure a defendant's appearance at a hearing, and another county who had held defendant the day before the hearing was not unreasonable in releasing him.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. Boyd, CA05-568,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND TWO, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed the denial of plaintiffs' motion for a new trial because Ark. Code Ann. § 18-11-106(a)(2) required only that the real property owned by plaintiffs be contiguous to the property claimed by adverse possession; thus, the matter was remanded to determine if that was the case.
|
|||||
| Shipp v. Shipp, CA05-469,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-234, any changes to a father's child-support obligation had to be preceded by a motion to modify; father's petition for change of custody was proper motion for modification, and when the trial court retroactively modified the father's obligation back to the February 10 order, it abused its discretion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
