 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Privett v. Excel Specialty Prods., CA 01-963,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 13, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where employee was injured performing incidental activity inherently necessary for performance of her primary employment activity, her injury was compensable and could not be used to avoid exclusive workers' compensation remedy provision.
|
|||||
| Pugh v. State, CACR01-77,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 13, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Informant's call to officer stating that defendant was going to buy cocaine from a man at a certain time and place gave officer specific, particularized, and articulable reasons indicating defendant was involved in criminal activity to support stop.
|
|||||
| Vickroy v. Schaufler, CA 01-938,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 13, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where notice of appeal was required with 30 days of the date motion for reconsideration was deemed denied, notice of appeal filed almost six months later was untimely and appellate court had no jurisdiction to hear appeal.
|
|||||
| Williams v. State, CACR01-629,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 13, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant failed to identify any specific juror who was biased, or to object to the composition of jury, defendant failed to meet his burden of proving the jury was biased and that another jury should have been empaneled.
|
|||||
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. |
