 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. State, CACR02-582,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 26, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court, in defendant's attempted murder case, did not err by denying his motion to suppress a confession, where he was read his Miranda rights, he signed a waiver, he understood the rights, and he was not coerced.
|
|||||
| Bishop v. Ackr, Inc., CA02-565,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 26, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a false arrest case, a court erred by granting a store's motion for summary judgment, where there was a fact question as to whether the shopper was forging checks or writing them in his own name.
|
|||||
| Corbit v. State, CACR02-750,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 26, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant yelled at state trooper, was shaking his hands, and stated that he would kill the trooper with his bare hands, there was substantial evidence that defendant's threats were made to terrorize the state trooper.
|
|||||
| Curry v. Thornsberry, CA 02-583,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 26, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In homeowner's fraudulent concealment action against a builder over a home built on expanding soil, if the problem was serious enough for homeowner to discuss it with builder in 1994, it was sufficient knowledge to commence the limitations period.
|
|||||
| Dovers v. Stephenson Oil Co., CA 02-548,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 26, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where employee driving tractor-trailer hit injured person from behind, after third vehicle abruptly slowed in front of injured person's vehicle, jury's verdict in favor of employee and his employer was not supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Enkoff v. State, CACR 02-491,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, February 26, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendants testified that they were accomplices in the commission of the crime and eyewitness testimony showed that one held patrons at gunpoint while one took the money, evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of theft of property.
|
|||||
| Gentry v. Kanna, CA02-620,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, February 26, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where sufficient evidence showed that parties agreed to do work for each other and that each was entitled to credit for reasonable and fair value of the work, trial court did not err in finding mechanic owed the contractor under an oral contract.
|
|||||
| Hubbell v. Hubbell, CA02-590,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 26, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the wife alimony, where evidence showed that the wife had a need, and the husband had an ability to pay.
|
|||||
| Lehman Props., L.P. v. BB&B Constr. Co., CA 02-588,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, February 26, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The company's claims were not arbitrable under the Federal Arbitration Act because the contract did not involve interstate commerce. Claims were arbitrable under the state statute because it was a breach of contract action.
|
|||||
| McQuay v. Ark. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, CA 02-618,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, February 26, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for insurer who rescinded policy was improper, where, based on evidence, jury might have concluded that, "to the best of the father's knowledge and belief," he was not diagnosed with chronic lung disease before obtaining policy.
|
|||||
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. |
