 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bankston v. State, CR 03-1082,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 10, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A second-degree murder conviction was affirmed because expert testimony was not admissible to show that defendant was mildly mentally retarded and had a schizo-affective disorder in order to support voluntary manslaughter under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-10-104(a)(1) (1997); the element of emotional disturbance did not include mental diseases or defects.
|
|||||
| Briley v. State, No. CACR 02-324,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 10, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition, which asked state supreme court to reinvest jurisdiction in trial court to consider petition for writ of error coram nobis, was denied where defense attorney knew full well of alleged agreement that formed basis of petitioner's claim for relief and issue could have been raised if defense saw some merit in bringing it to court's attention.
|
|||||
| Daily World v. Phillips County Circuit Court, 05-146,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 10, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Newspaper, asserting constitutional violations, filed petition for writ of certiorari, seeking dissolution of injunction that prohibited it from publishing information on case. But, per Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 6-1(a), without certified copy of sealed record, supreme court had no basis to act. Record was ordered to be transmitted under seal.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. State, CR 04-854,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 10, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion seeking to be allowed to file a belated corrected brief was granted, even though appellate counsel had missed two deadlines to file an adequate appellate brief; counsel was ordered to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Arkansas Supreme Court's orders.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Putman, No. CR 04-1313,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 10, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a petitioner apparently named wrong respondent in Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition but, after a two year delay due to confusion as to which court it was assigned, the petition was nevertheless disposed of by circuit court, the supreme court declared petition for writ of mandamus contending that judge failed to act in timely manner to be moot.
|
|||||
| McClain v. State, CR 04-1069,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 10, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's trial for aggravated robbery, a violation of Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-12-103, once trial court had admonished jury, defendant made no further objections, did not seek a further admonition, or request mistrial; his failure to apprise trial court of his belief admonition was inadequate precluded him from raising such an argument on appeal.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Cash, Inc. v. Loveless, 04-565,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 10, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed a grant of class certification under Ark. R. Civ. P. 23 because there was a predominant issue involved, and the court refused to address the merits of the case; because there was no mutuality, the arbitration provision was not valid and was not subject to enforcement.
|
|||||
| Phelan v. Discover Bank, 04-477,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 10, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not error to grant bank's motion for new trial where it was proper to exclude either date of filing or first day of trial when computing 14-day statutory period under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 16-46-108, but it was improper to exclude both. Because consumer was no longer prevailing party, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny her attorney's fees.
|
|||||
| Simmons v. State, No. CR 04-1346,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 10, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner did not obtain leave from state supreme court to file petition for writ of error coram nobis, trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider petition. As to the petition to correct sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 16-90-111 (Supp. 1995), the petition was untimely and trial court could not have granted the requested relief.
|
|||||
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. |
