 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Goings, CA00-823,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly determined general plan of development existed in neighborhood; therefore adverse ruling on quiet title action to void restrictive covenants to construct multi-unit housing was not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Auto Connection, Inc. v. Gardner, CA 00-415,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 14, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Used car dealers did not satisfy statutory requirements regarding disclosures to be made to a buyer of car with a negatively branded title. Thus, car buyer was permitted to void sale agreement after providing dealers with timely notification.
|
|||||
| Bagby v. State, CACR00-737,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In probation revocation hearing, trial court did not err by admitting state employee's testimony because she was responsible for appellant's probation file that contained information about appellant's community service hours.
|
|||||
| Fleming v. Dir., Ark. Empl. Sec. Dep't, E 00-216,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS THREE AND FOUR, March 14, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Worker who was discharged for violating company attendance policies because he was arrested for failing to make child support payments could not be denied unemployment benefits on misconduct ground since his actions were not intentional.
|
|||||
| Flud v. State, CACR 00-695,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Videotape helped establish the veracity of victim's story; any prejudicial impact was outweighed by its probative value, particularly in light of the trial court limiting the view to portions confirming the child's testimony.
|
|||||
| Fouse v. State, CA CR 00-477,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 14, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because search warrant was based upon numerous reports that methamphetamine lab was operating in home, confirmed by aerial photographs, home's security measures, and odor of ether, motion to suppress was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Hoey v. State, CA CR 00-707,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 14, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Search of appellant was not reasonable, and thus, violated Fourth Amendment as the search was not conducted incident to a lawful arrest as it preceded the arrest. Also, contraband officer seized from appellant's pocket was not in plain view.
|
|||||
| Kidd v. Eoff, CA00-156,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that decedent was elderly and in poor health, that she sold timber rights for fraction of their value, and that she never changed her will was insufficient to establish that appellees' parents procured deed by undue influence.
|
|||||
| Lovett v. State, CACR00-679,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: False imprisonment conviction and sentence affirmed, as there was substantial evidence from which jury could have concluded that appellant was victim's attacker. Trial court did not err in overruling two of appellant's evidentiary objections.
|
|||||
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. |
