 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lewis Ford Sales, Inc. v. Fisher, CA06-874,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While there existed conflicting medical evidence, the workers' compensation commission did not err in reversing the ALJ's finding that an employee aggravated a knee injury sustained while working for his former employer as reasonable minds could have found that he suffered a recurrence of the initial injury while working for his current employer.
|
|||||
| Maddox v. State, CACR06-788,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Initial entry of the officers into defendant's home was warranted by Ark. R. Crim. P. 14.3(a) because: (1) the officers were trained and experienced in dealing with meth labs; (2) they concluded that a meth lab was on the premises based on the odors they could smell; and (3) defendant advised that there was someone else in the house or nearby.
|
|||||
| McAdory v. State, CACR06-708,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ark. R. Crim. P. 8.1 did not apply to a case where defendant was placed in detention on a "parole hold" where he was suspected of a robbery because he was in the constructive custody of the Arkansas Department of Corrections under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-701(b)(4); therefore, he was subject to summary arrest for parole violations.
|
|||||
| McLin v. Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., CA06-1293,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a mother did not seek to regain physical custody of a minor child, who the mother knew was living in a van with his maternal grandmother, there was sufficient evidence of abandonment under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(2); moreover, the mother had no relationship with the child and acted indifferent about his foster care placement.
|
|||||
| Nicholson v. State, CACR06-671,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support convictions for first-degree battery and residential burglary based on accomplice liability under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-111(e)(1)(A) where two witnesses not involved in a scheme to beat up defendant's husband and rob him testified as to her involvement.
|
|||||
| Oliver v. State, CACR06-897,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of rape where the victim was incapable of consent because she was physically helpless or mentally incapacitated, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(2)(A), (C); victim was physically helpless under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(6) as the medication she took caused sedation.
|
|||||
| Reeves v. Ark. HHS, CA06-805,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly continued custody of a mother's children with the department of human services as it had sufficient evidence to find the children dependent-neglected under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-313(c) based on the mother's acknowledgement that she had smoked methamphetamine in the presence of at least one child.
|
|||||
| Richardson v. State, CA CR 06-642,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Possession of more than one gram of cocaine created rebuttable presumption that defendant possessed cocaine with intent to deliver, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401(d)(3)(A)(i). Defendant possessed 11.8 grams of cocaine. Because he failed to rebut that presumption, substantial evidence supported his possession of cocaine with intent to deliver conviction.
|
|||||
| Schmidt v. Stearman, CA06-726,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding against the property owner in his conversion claim was improper because the basic elements of conversion were proven beyond dispute. Several of the property owner's possessions were taken with the clear intent to exercise dominion and control over them in a manner inconsistent with the property owner's ownership.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
