 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Rogers v. Rogers, No. CA07-1217,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order finding husband in contempt for failure to pay child support, spousal support, and attorney fees was upheld because he was properly served with contempt petition under Ark. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2); server's affidavit stated that he was certified process server and that he individually served husband with true copy of summons and contempt petition.
|
|||||
| Superior Indus. v. Salguero, No. CA08-1003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Walton v. State, No. CACR 08-882,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 11, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's argument that the evidence was insufficient to show that he was the perpetrator of a breaking and entering was not preserved for appellate review under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(a) because a directed verdict motion did not make a specific challenge on the issue of identity.
|
|||||
| Worley v. Spradlin, CA08-710,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 11, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order continuing guardianship of child with her paternal grandmother was upheld because maternal grandparents were not denied due process as they were given full and complete hearing and were able to put on evidence and cross-examine witnesses when they finally elected to challenge guardianship more than three years after they first learned of it.
|
|||||
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. |
