 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bogan v. State, CACR05-892,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order revoking defendant's probation was upheld because although he was denied the opportunity to confront a probation officer regarding information in his probation file, at least one of the grounds for revoking his probation was not established by the probation officer's testimony.
|
|||||
| Bryant v. State, CACR05-405,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-305(b)(1), the trial court did not err in denying defendant's request for a mental evaluation where there was no evidence to suggest that he lacked an appreciation for the seriousness of the charges against him or an ability to assist his attorney in his defense, and the trial court found him fit to proceed.
|
|||||
| Bumgardner v. State, CA CR 05-775,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of defendant's appeal from a written conditional plea agreement involving his drug convictions was proper because it appeared that he appealed the conditional plea, Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b), rather than the circuit court's judgment; thus, the appellate court stated that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
|
|||||
| City of Stuttgart v. Bragg, CA05-1100,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's off-duty status as a police officer did not relieve him of his sworn duty to preserve the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas; pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4), reasonable minds would find that the employee sustained his injuries while acting within the course of his employment as a police officer.
|
|||||
| Deaver v. Faucon Props., CA05-1019,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Estate administrator's order fulfilled requirements of the revivor statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-108, where the order clearly substituted him as a party and recited that he was the proper party to pursue his case on behalf of the decedent; failure to use "revivor" in order did not mean that the cause of action should not be allowed to continue.
|
|||||
| Kight v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-522,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating a mother's parental rights to her children pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341 was upheld because the court did not deprive her of her parental rights without due process. She had notice of the hearing and was given the opportunity to voice her objection to fact that court failed to order continuation of reunification services.
|
|||||
| Koonce v. Cedarville Waterworks, CA05-844,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer's notice of appeal encompassed an appeal of the employee's compensability issue. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-508(a), Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission correctly found that the employee's Botox injections were not reasonably necessary for treatment of his back injury. Reduction of employee's wage loss disability was proper.
|
|||||
| Mayweather v. State, CACR05-300,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress where there was probable cause to search the vehicle given the testimony of the police officers that they smelled marijuana. Defendant did not prove bad faith on part of the State in its failure to preserve the videotape of the search.
|
|||||
| Moix v. State, CA 05-842,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was evidence from independent witnesses that defendant struck the victim in the face with a guitar when the victim had not threatened defendant verbally or physically, the appellate court held the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding of delinquency.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
