Arkansas, March, 2005, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Arkansas - March 3, 2005

Bader v. State, No. CR 04-1182, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 3, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Batiste v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 04-486, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 3, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: ALJ erred in finding that children were not in the State's custody for adoption subsidy purposes, Ark. Code Ann. ? 9-9-404, because, although the children were in their aunt's physical custody, the State maintained a supervisory role through the context of the protective-services case that remained open until the parents' rights were terminated.

Search Cases for Free

Camp v. State, CR 04-1368, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 3, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Petitioner was not entitled to a writ of certiorari to complete the record in his appeal from a criminal conviction because he had not complied with the provisions of Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 5(b). Petitioner made no showing that he was unable to obtain entry of an order from the trial court further extending the time to file the record.

Search Cases for Free

Casey v. State, CR 04-1206, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 3, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Cook v. State, CR 03-670, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 3, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Trial court did not err in denying Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 relief; defendant was not prejudiced by joint representation where both he and co-defendant were charged as principals and accomplices. Three of five counts in information pertained only to defendant; thus, it appeared he played bigger role, and nothing counsel said in voir dire changed that.

Search Cases for Free

Dennis v. Norris, No. 05-29, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 3, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Where an inmate failed to file an appeal from a denial of a petition for habeas corpus within the 30-day time limit set forth in Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 4(a), a motion for a belated appeal was denied because there was no good cause shown; it was the inmate's responsibility to perfect the appeal, despite the fact he did not receive notice of an order.

Search Cases for Free

Dyas v. Norris, No. 05-101, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 3, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Appeal from denial of writ of habeas corpus was dismissed as moot because the petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of showing by affidavit or other evidence of probable cause to believe that he was illegally detained, Ark. Code Ann. ? 16-112-103 (1987).

Search Cases for Free

Evans v. Tillery, 04-688, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 3, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Two large judgments received by a father constituted "income" under Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 10; therefore, a trial court did not err by ordering the father to pay a percentage of the judgments as a one-time child support obligation. It was irrelevant that the father had agreed to repay discharged bankruptcy debts.

Search Cases for Free

Helena-West Helena Sch. Dist. v. Monday, 04-1058, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 3, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: The trial court properly denied the school district summary judgment on the parent's negligence claim where its claimed qualified immunity status was unknown because the question of whether the school district had applicable liability insurance under Ark. Code Ann. ? 21-9-301 remained a material question of fact.

Search Cases for Free

Hoffman v. Gregory, 04-934, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 3, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: The trial court did not err by finding that the granddaughter's memorandum was not an enforceable release of her expectancy interest in her grandmother's estate where the grandmother did not accept the memorandum to release her expectancy interest. Granddaughter failed to file a notice of cross appeal as was required.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal