 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carey v. State, No. CR05-782,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sufficiency argument was not preserved under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1 (2005) because defense counsel made generic directed-verdict motion, which the circuit court denied and, in renewing the motion, it was clearly general and lacked any mention of the specific element or elements of the crime which the State might have failed to establish.
|
|||||
| Goff v. Epley, No. 06-94,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jordan v. State, No. CR 05-1162,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Moffett v. State, No. CR 05-457,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly denied defendant's Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition for postconviction relief without hearing because his right to speedy trial was not violated. Whether speedy trial period ran from the date of the information, or the date of defendant's arrest on the current charges, his trial was within the 12-month period required by Rule 28.1(b).
|
|||||
| Summons v. State, No. CR 05-496,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly dismissed defendant's Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition for postconviction relief as untimely under Rule 37.2(c) because it was filed 115 days after mandate was issued. Petition was also not properly verified, as required by Rule 37.1(d), because while it included a form that purported to be a verification, statement was not notarized.
|
|||||
| Thessing v. State, No. CR05-420,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a capital murder case, defendant's use of crack cocaine was admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) as part of the res gestae where the witness testified that defendant took items he had stolen to her home, he discussed his crimes with her, and he then smoked crack cocaine with her that was purchased with money taken from the victim.
|
|||||
| Tice v. State, No. CR06-114,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court denied a public defender's motion to be relieved as counsel on appeal because Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 16(a) clearly stated that there was no automatic right of withdrawal; the public defender did not show that, in the interest of justice or for other sufficient cause, his motion should be granted.
|
|||||
| Tri-County Solid Waste Dist. v. Ark. Pollution Control & Ecology Comm'n, No. 05-589,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order approving a landfill's application to expand was upheld because the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission correctly concluded that the Arkansas Tri-County Solid Waste District Board's denial of a certificate of need due to the geology of the area was improper under Ark. Code Ann. § 8-6-706(d) (2000).
|
|||||
| Williams v. Johnson, No. 05-598,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 2, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court did not err in denying an inmate's petition for declaratory judgment where he presented no justiciable issue; pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-705, inmate did not cite authority for his assertion that he was entitled to parole hearing and he did not allege any violation occurred.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
