Arkansas, March, 2003, 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 5, 2003

Hickey v. State, CACR02-520, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 5, 2003, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Police had reasonable suspicion to justify stopping defendant's vehicle; a victim had reported a crime to the police; defendant was observed with blood on his clothes, and admitted he was in possession of marijuana.

Search Cases for Free

Lainhart v. Diamante, CA02-538, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 5, 2003, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Circuit court appropriately granted summary judgment in favor of the community corporations where the homeowner did not show that the corporations' representation was known to be false and promise of future conduct could not form a fraud claim.

Search Cases for Free

Peel v. State, CACR 02-291, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 5, 2003, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to promoting prostitution, defendant's guilty plea spoke for itself and trial court was not required to believe defendant's self-serving explanation for his plea; there was no error in revoking defendant's probation.

Search Cases for Free

Rodriguez v. State, CACR01-1297, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 5, 2003, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: There was substantial evidence that defendant was in possession of the weapons, that they could be used to injure or hurt somebody, and that the jury could have found that they were weapons to inflict serious physical injury or death.

Search Cases for Free

Rutherford v. Rutherford, CA 02-551, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 5, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: The trial court was not bound by a separation agreement dividing the parties' marital property as it was within its sound discretion to approve, disapprove, or modify it and the refusal to enforce the agreement was not clearly erroneous.

Search Cases for Free

Scott v. Dir., E02-173, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 5, 2003, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Because employee was not ignorant of the true facts of his failed attempts to appeal a fraud overpayment, the employee was unable to maintain an estoppel argument concerning his disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits.

Search Cases for Free

Tew v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA01-1034, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 5, 2003, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: In a dependency proceeding where the court found that three minor children were being raised in a home where their father was manufacturing methamphetamine, the court's decision to terminate parental rights was not clearly erroneous.

Search Cases for Free

Thomas v. Marked Tree Bank, CA02-642, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 5, 2003, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Summary judgment was proper on bank's action to execute on hypothecation agreement securing farm equipment. Even if allegations of fraud and coercion relating to subsequent agreement were true, first agreement was valid and enforceable.

Search Cases for Free

Tolbert v. State, CACR02-315, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 5, 2003, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant's failure to proffer what he anticipated the victim's testimony to be in regard to her juvenile detention and its potential admissibility at trial barred consideration of the argument on appeal.

Search Cases for Free

Tucker v. State, CACR02-629, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 5, 2003, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: State did not have to provide direct proof that defendant's act of inserting his finger in his daughter's vagina was done for sexual gratification. Defendant was able to address the specific point he wanted to address in the suppression hearing.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal