 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Amador v. Amador Contr., CA03-892,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS THREE AND FOUR, March 10, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A claim for compensation benefits was denied because an employee failed to overcome the rebuttable presumption that an accident was substantially occasioned by the illegal drugs in his system; the mere presence of drugs gave rise to the presumption.
|
|||||
| Berry v. Cherokee Vill. Sewer, Inc., CA 03-693,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 10, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting judgment for unpaid sewer maintenance fees to the sewer company on a theory of implied contract because of the absence of any express contract or a bill of assurance that the customer agreed to the new rate structure.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, CA CR 03-133,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 10, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On defendant's appeal from robbery and credit card fraud convictions, judgment was affirmed; her sentence was not illegal and the trial court did not err in admitting hearsay testimony under the excited utterance exception.
|
|||||
| Caffey v. Sanyo Mfg. Corp., CA 03-943,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 10, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an employee was required to show an identification badge, walk down a hallway, and punch a time clock, a fall suffered prior to clocking in was compensable because the employee was performing employment services.
|
|||||
| Christopher W. v. State, CA03-1293,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 10, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support a trial court's decision to adjudicate defendant a delinquent on three rape charges based on the testimony of three child witnesses, even though the testimony was inconsistent on the issue of force.
|
|||||
| Crockett v. Counseling Servs. of E. Ark., Inc., CA 03-829,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 10, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After an employee received unemployment benefits based on a finding of no work-related misconduct, collateral estoppel did not bar the employer from asserting, in a racial discrimination case, that the employee was fired for inappropriate behavior.
|
|||||
| Jesson v. Jesson, CA03-825,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 10, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed a custody award to a mother because the father worked hours that were not conducive to raising a child; the court expressed concern for the mother's possible intention of interfering with the relationship of the father and child.
|
|||||
| Lancaster v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA03-991,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 10, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary affirmance was appropriate in a mother's appeal from the termination of parental rights where the mother failed to include any testimony from the proceedings in the record on appeal, despite notice that the record and abstract were deficient.
|
|||||
| Randall v. Ward, CA 03-700,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 10, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In landowner's appeal of adverse determination in boundary dispute, judgment was affirmed; in light of the facts and the trial court's site visit, there was no clear error in the trial court's decision.
|
|||||
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. |
