 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jiles v. Union Planters Bank, CA 04-738,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 16, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a minor's action to recover funds wrongfully paid out by a bank, the trial court erred in not allowing the minor to recover attorney's fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-308 (Repl. 1999) because the matter actually sounded in contract; bank's obligations would not have existed had it not entered into agreement to accept deposit of funds.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, CACR04-632,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence existed to support defendant's conviction for arson in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-38-301 (Repl. 1997) as fire investigators testified that intensity of the fire and the presence of black smoke indicated the use of accelerants, and the witness testimony gave jury a reasonable basis to infer that defendant started the fire.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. State, CACR04-877,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a criminal prosecution, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's pretrial motion for a continuance to secure private counsel. There was no indication that appointed counsel was not able, diligent, and effective in his representation.
|
|||||
| Mayes v. Massery, CA04-753,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred by concluding that the landowner had not shown a boundary by acquiescence where both the landowner and her neighbors presented proof at trial that they regarded a fence dividing their respective properties as the boundary line, which constituted a mutual recognition of the fence as the boundary line.
|
|||||
| McCord v. Ray, CA04-674,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellee landowners used a road on appellants' property to access a part of their property and erected a gate across the roadway, which the appellants later removed, the trial court's decision that a prescriptive easement existed was not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Meadows v. Nancy E. Pryor, Inc., CA 04-908,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 16, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed judgment debtor's suit against judgment creditor for tortious conduct and other civil causes of action, which sought injunction against enforcement of default judgment against her, because proper way to challenge a default judgment was under Ark. R. Civ. P. 55, as Ark. R. Civ. P. 60 did not apply to default judgments.
|
|||||
| Sanders v. State, CACR04-899,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant admitted being with an accomplice when a residence in Little Rock, Arkansas, was burglarized, he was properly convicted of residential burglary and theft of property. Defendant's self-serving testimony concerning the defense of duress under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-208(a) (Repl. 1997) was not credible.
|
|||||
| Simmons v. State, CA CR 04-313,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 16, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restitution order that included items on it for which defendant had not been charged was reversed and remanded back to the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of restitution under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-205 (Supp. 2003) based on the value of the items that defendant was charged with stealing and pled guilty or no contest to stealing.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, CA CR 04-200,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 16, 2005, Opinion decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an assault case arising from shaking a baby, testimony of defendant's actions toward the same infant two weeks earlier was admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) and Ark. R. 403 because it was offered to show state of mind and to negate the claim of accident. Reversal was not required based on a jury selection error since there was no prejudice.
|
|||||
| Stouffer v. Kralicek Realty Co., CA04-502,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action over home defect, buyer's affidavit did not contradict realtor's affidavit in meaningful way. Affidavit merely contained buyer's suspicions about realtor's participation in a scheme to defraud her and same did not give rise to a question of material fact. Buyer failed to rebut prima facie showing realtor was entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
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. |
