 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Levingston v. Stovall, CA04-942,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge did not err in finding that there was no positive proof that heirs' interests were not adequately represented by a personal representative. Heirs failed to show that the personal representative mismanaged the estate or neglected to perform any duty pertaining to the office; she did file heirs' wrongful-death action.
|
|||||
| Levingston v. Stovall, CA04-690,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 28-48-101, estranged wife, as surviving spouse, was properly nominated as estate administratrix; under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 28-48-105, no evidence was produced by the mother or other beneficiaries to provide any basis for removing the wife as administratrix. Beneficiaries did not show how administratrix neglected duties.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. Dir., Empl. Sec. Dep't, E 04-142,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 9, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of unemployment benefits, under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-10-514 (2002), was affirmed where the claimant's representation to a bank investigator that two employees participated in opening the depository, when in fact she acted alone, was not truthful, and reasonable minds could have concluded that the representation rose to level of dishonesty.
|
|||||
| Maxwell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA03-1008,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Maxwell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA 03-1007,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 9, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-341 (2002) was proper where the evidence showed that, inter alia, the mother, who had three children before she was 18, failed to participate in reunification plans, left her children in a foster home in order to return to a relative's house, and left the children unattended.
|
|||||
| Maxwell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA03-1006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| McBride v. State, CACR04-570,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not seek suppression of the State's evidence, object to the introduction of the evidence, or challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1 in defendant's trial for fleeing, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-54-125(a) (1997).
|
|||||
| N. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Lipsmeyer, CA04-376,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the argument that the school district made on appeal from an order granting the teachers their attorney's fees was actually a challenge to the validity of an earlier order voiding new personnel policies from which no timely notice of appeal was filed, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction under Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 4 to address it.
|
|||||
| Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Lee, CA04-743,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred by setting a father's child support obligation for one child under Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 10 by looking at the total number of dependants and then dividing that amount since the support for only one child was before the court.
|
|||||
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. |
