 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| McWilliams v. Schmidt, CA00-955,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Chancellor did not err in denying landowners punitive attorney fees against the opposing parties after granting their motion to dismiss a quiet title action because there was a justiciable issue in the action.
|
|||||
| Medlock v. State, CACR 00-209,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not show racial motivation of prosecutor's peremptory strike, and did not object to his bond amount; defendant voluntarily consented to search of his house and his custodial confession was voluntary after advisement of his rights.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. State, CA CR 00-598,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 14, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probation revocation upheld as State proved one violation of conditions of appellant's probation and motion to withdraw representation denied where appellant was entitled to corrected sentence to reflect jail-time credit.
|
|||||
| Nelson v. State, CACR00-659,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying motions to suppress evidence and appellant's incriminating statement where warrant supported by facts of active drug activity from appellant's premises. Statement was thus not poisonous fruit.
|
|||||
| Pack v. State, CA 00-736,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Adjudication as delinquent on charges of felony criminal mischief upheld where evidence was sufficient to hold juvenile criminally liable as accomplice and statement provided to police did not implicate Miranda protections.
|
|||||
| Parks v. Death & Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund, CA 00-879,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As former employee's monthly paycheck did not vary based on the number of days actually worked in a particular month, the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's method of calculating her compensation rate was proper.
|
|||||
| Rippee v. Walters, CA 00-834,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parties were never married; thus, a division of property pursuant to the divorce laws was improper. Appellant did not prove an oral contract or a constructive trust. Thus, appellant did not state a complaint upon which relief could be granted.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. State, CACR00-967,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant, convicted of improper parking and DWI, challenged his convictions, arguing insufficiency of the evidence. Appellant's argument failed as it was based on assumption appellate court could assess witness credibility.
|
|||||
| Rolling Pines Ltd. Pshp. v. City of Little Rock, CA 00-165,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because manufactured homes placement was not compatible with existing neighborhood's character and there was concern about effect they would have on property values, denial of developer's conditional use permit was upheld.
|
|||||
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. |
