 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. State, CACR05-1129,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a criminal trial for robbery, the trial court did not err by overruling defendant's objections to testimony from a security officer that he was transported to the emergency room after defendant hit him because he developed complications from his health problems. The testimony had at least marginal relevance under Ark. R. Evid. 401-403.
|
|||||
| Benedix v. Romeo, CA05-418,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in denying mother's motion to move with parties' child from Arkansas, where the child's father lived, to Oklahoma because although the court's order acknowledged the presumption in favor of relocation by custodial parents, the court essentially placed the burden on the mother to prove that the move constituted an advantage to the child.
|
|||||
| Daniel v. City of Ashdown, CA 05-424,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owners of land used by a city as a dump did not have a viable cause of action against the city for inverse condemnation because the 7-year statute of limitations under Ark. Code Ann. § 18-61-101 (2003) had expired; the city's use of the land as a dump since the 1950s showed an intent to possess adversely, and no action had been filed previously.
|
|||||
| Delta Consol. Indus. v. Nelson, CA05-889,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order finding that an employee sustained compensable injury to his upper extremity caused by job activities that required rapid repetitive motion was upheld where, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A)(ii)(a) and (E), reasonable minds could conclude that repetitive welding activities caused injury and that lifting heavy toolboxes caused pain.
|
|||||
| Franklin v. State, CACR05-925,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, a violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401, where, inter alia, police seized 6.6613 grams of methamphetamine from defendant's residence while he was there, which was more than 30 times the presumptive amount for possession with intent to deliver.
|
|||||
| Garver v. State, CA CR 05-766,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence existed for the revocation of defendant's probation on the ground that he possessed drug paraphernalia and a controlled substance where he admitted that he had smoked marijuana; two pipes, a spoon, and a flashlight that contained two syringes and a straw were also found in the vehicle that he was driving when he was arrested.
|
|||||
| Green v. Cooper Std. Auto., Inc., CA05-674,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After the employee suffered three compensable knee injuries, the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission denied him an award for medical treatment related to knee replacement surgery. The court upheld the Commission's decision which credited the testimony of a doctor who opined that total knee replacement was not due to a job-related illness.
|
|||||
| Hall v. State, CACR05-1107,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant plea guilty to rape under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103, the court did not err by preventing him from cross-examining the victim about her marijuana use; it was of no relevance. The victim's testimony regarding prior sexual encounters with defendant was properly admitted during the sentencing phase under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-97-103.
|
|||||
| Halton v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-390,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in adjudicating mother's infant daughter as a dependent-neglected child under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303 because despite mother's claims that she left child with others until she got her life together and got off drugs, she had done little to get her life in order and had shirked her responsibility for most of child's life.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Latex Constr. Co., CA 05-1140,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission erred when it determined that a claimant seeking benefits for a compensable back injury lacked motivation to return to work under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522(b) (2002) due to the fact that he refused to move from a certain geographical location.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
