 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jarrett v. Sol Alman Co., CA03-808,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 3, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a workers' compensation commission reviewed the medical evidence and found that a physician could not state that a work-related accident was the major cause of the employee's impairment, the employee was properly denied benefits.
|
|||||
| Kerr v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA 03-733,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 3, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a former daycare employee's counsel did not develop before the state department of human services why the statutory notice of her maltreatment determination was unconstitutional, she failed to preserve the issue for appellate review.
|
|||||
| Kincannon v. State, CA CR 03-237,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 3, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In drug defendant's appeal, judgment was reversed because trial court erred in admitting testimony of confidential informant; State improperly elicited from defendant information that it already knew it would rebut with informant's testimony.
|
|||||
| McConnell v. McConnell, CA 03-930,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 3, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in finding that a temporary custody order was a final order, thereby requiring the mother to prove a change in circumstances in order to seek modified custody; the trial court had applied the wrong standard.
|
|||||
| Morrell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA03-993,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 3, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The mother's failure to abide by the terms of her reunification plan and to correct the conditions that led to the finding that her son was dependent-neglected warranted the termination of her parental rights.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. State, CACR03-614,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 3, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence that was hearsay and did not fall under any exception, the court affirmed defendant's convictions based on the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.
|
|||||
| Stell v. Pippen & Sons Contr., CA03-906,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 3, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The workers' compensation commission properly determined that the claimant suffered a compensable injury and substantial evidence supported an award of a 10 percent wage-loss disability benefit.
|
|||||
| Sys. Contr. Corp. v. Reeves, CA 03-826,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 3, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In employer's appeal of adverse judgment in workers' compensation case, judgment was affirmed; court affirmed finding that claimant had rebutted the presumption that the accident was substantially occasioned by his use of illegal drugs.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA03-732,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 3, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an individual failed to bring a proper record, the court was unable to review the case and summarily affirmed the dismissal of the individual's administrative hearing request concerning the listing of her name for child maltreatment.
|
|||||
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. |
