 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aaron v. State, CACR04-907,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where police found a .40-caliber firearm sticking out from under the seat of a car where defendant was sitting, substantial evidence supported his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-73-103(a)(1) (Supp. 2003). Defendant's constructive possession over the firearm was implied.
|
|||||
| Bowman v. State, CACR04-713,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was arrested for sexual indecency with a child and indecent exposure, his probation was revoked three days later, and he began serving a one-year sentence, the trial court properly awarded him credit for three days of jail time pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-4-404 (Repl. 1993). He was not entitled to 175 days' jail credit.
|
|||||
| Bryant v. State, CA04-722,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to transfer his case to juvenile court pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-318 (Repl. 2002) as the trial court considered all of the factors in ¿ 9-27-318 and based on defendant's age and his role in the two armed robberies, the appellate court could not say the trial court erred.
|
|||||
| Coggins v. City of Hoxie, CA 04-813,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The city owed no duty to the businessman to protect the value of the collateral via insurance proceeds, and even were the city did owe such a duty, the businessman failed to prove the extent of impairment caused because the proponent of discharge bore the burden of proving the impairment, Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 4-3-605.
|
|||||
| Duffield v. Duffield, CA04-796,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract case, parol evidence did not exclude evidence of an oral agreement because a written settlement agreement involved different parties. Moreover, the oral agreement regarding the later disposition of property did not alter or vary terms of the settlement agreement.
|
|||||
| Duke v. Cook, CA04-435,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce case, the appellate court could not determine whether the trial court erred because the wife failed to submit the property-settlement agreement in either the abstract or the record, as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2(a)(5) (2004), and the property settlement was the key document necessary to review her issues on appeal.
|
|||||
| Gaba v. S. Refrigerated Transp., CA04-865,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's finding that a truck driver who injured his back did not sustain a "compensable injury" under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Supp. 2003) was supported by substantial evidence. The truck driver had a complicated medical history and he did not seek treatment for the injury for seven months.
|
|||||
| Glenn v. State, CACR03-903,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal challenging the denial of his motion to suppress was dismissed without prejudice. His notice of appeal did not comply with the requirements of Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b), because it failed to address the judgment and commitment order that followed his conditional plea for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Gregory Trucking , CA 04-861,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 16, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When presented with the evidence before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission, fair-minded persons could not have reached the conclusion that the medications prescribed by the employee's authorized treating physician and re-prescribed by other physicians were not reasonable and necessary under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-9-508(a) (Supp. 2003).
|
|||||
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. |
