 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beebe v. Fountain Lake Sch. Dist., No. 05-508,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in dismissing school district's action for implementation of additional levy of 7.55 mills on ground that it was barred by res judicata because present action and a prior action did not involve same parties or their privies; prior action could not govern outcome of present action because State of Arkansas was not party in prior action.
|
|||||
| Brewer v. Carter, No. 05-738,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayer did not have standing under Ark. Const. art. 16, § 13 to pursue an illegal exaction suit against the county and a building company where the funds used to repair a building were not generated from tax dollars or otherwise arising from taxation as county's payment of insurance deductible was exact amount owed under its insurance contract.
|
|||||
| Collins v. State, No. CR05-71,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5 provided specific procedures on how postconviction relief was to be pursued and included deadlines that had to be met; because death penalty was imposed, unique attention to procedural safeguards had to be met, and circuit court had to appoint counsel who met Rule 37.5 requirements and all issues had to be set out in petition.
|
|||||
| Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 05-731,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting insurer summary judgment on a physical therapist's defamation claim where there was conflicting statements that made it plain that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding his claim; evidence revealed aspects from which inconsistent hypothesis might reasonably be drawn and reasonable minds might differ.
|
|||||
| Drabbant v. State, No. CR 05-688,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of the inmate's petition for a writ of habeas under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-101 to 16-112-123 was proper where his guilty plea was an admission of guilt that settled all question as to whether identity was an issue, and precluded further consideration of his Act 1790 (codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to 16-112-207) claim.
|
|||||
| Escobedo v. Nickita, No. 05-315,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a putative father did not timely register with the putative-father registry, his consent to the adoption of his biological child was not required by Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-206(a)(2). The father was given timely notice of the hearing on the petition for adoption; the requirements of the Due Process Clause were satisfied.
|
|||||
| Farrell v. Farrell, No. 05-433,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inter alia, court did not err when it found because wife had acquired stock before marriage, it was not marital property, but the increase in value of stock was a marital asset and unequal distribution was equitable based upon Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-315 (2002), because, inter alia, initial $ 25,000 for stock purchase was repaid with marital funds.
|
|||||
| Folk v. State, No. CR 06-61,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted petitioner's motion to amend a statement in his motion for belated appeal of the circuit court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but denied the motion for belated appeal because petitioner was not in custody in the circuit court's jurisdiction; thus the circuit court could not have granted the remedy requested.
|
|||||
| Forte v. Reynolds, No. CR 06-168,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 9, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
