 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Harness v. State, CACR03-1410,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants complied with Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b) and preserved their rights to appeal from conditional guilty pleas, as defendants signed guilty-plea statements that had the word "conditional" written above the heading of the document. Under the waiver of rights section, lines were drawn through the wording "the right to appeal my conviction."
|
|||||
| Jones v. Coker, CA 04-695,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract case, a court properly allowed the insurer to introduce evidence about a homeowner's prior late payments and lapses of her homeowner's policies under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) because the evidence was admissible to show her intent to not make the November 2001 payment on time and to show that a mistake did not occur.
|
|||||
| Lagrone v. State, CA CR 04-415,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a continuance after he found out during his case-in-chief that prosecutor had released the detectives that both parties planned to call as witnesses because defendant was not entitled to rely on the State's witness list for his own defense; defendant also failed to show prejudice.
|
|||||
| Livingston v. State, CA04-912,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Loveless v. State, CACR04-525,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied and the search warrant was valid where an affidavit need not have included independent facts to support a witness's reliability when that witness volunteered information and the magistrate could have found that there was a substantial basis on which to decide that probable cause existed.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Georgia-Pacific Plywood Second Injury Fund, CA04-577,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission was affirmed because the employee had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained an injury on the date at issue, or that the nature and extent of the employee's injury kept her from working.
|
|||||
| Parker v. Johnson, CA 04-677,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 2, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that voluntary payment of mortgage indebtedness had the effect of extinguishing judgment liens where purchasers purchased the land with knowledge that it was subject to appellants' judgment liens, and appellants had no opportunity to protect their liens at the time purchasers voluntarily paid the mortgage indebtedness.
|
|||||
| Parmley v. State, CACR04-692,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based upon a reliable report of a suspicious vehicle from a reliable resident, a strong chemical smell emanating from defendant's vehicle, and defendant's lack of a valid driver's license, the security officer did not lack authority under Ark. R. Crim. P. 2.2. or 3.1 to approach or detain defendant.
|
|||||
| Pippin v. Houston Gen. Ins. Co., CA04-299,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission could consider medical findings even if the evaluation was conducted in violation of the discovery order imposed under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-9-511 because claimant had waived any objection to the discovery misconduct. Commission's finding that healing period had ended was supported by the evidence.
|
|||||
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. |
