 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abels v. Copelin, CA02-718,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where several neighbors showed that they used a portion of land for seven continuous years, the evidence was sufficient to show that they acquired the land in question through adverse possession.
|
|||||
| Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Haen, CA 02-365,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 12, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence did not support the decision to place the employee on the certified nursing abuse registry, where the administrative law judge did not make the requisite findings to support the violation she found.
|
|||||
| Ark. Health Group v. Rochelle, CA02-728,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by issuing final order holding covenant not to compete to be unenforceable after holding only a hearing on the parties' motions for a preliminary injunction. Motion for a new trial was not required to preserve issue for review.
|
|||||
| Autozone, Inc. v. Biles, CA 02-818,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an employee was not on his way to make a bank deposit when he was killed in a car accident, his spouse was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits under the going and coming rule.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, CACR02-424,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although there were discrepancies between the testimony of the detective and the buyer of cocaine, as to the transfer of the drug from the buyer to the detective, this did not indicate a break in the chain of custody.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, CACR02-773,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver was proper where he failed to preserve his sufficient evidence challenge and where the jury was permitted to hear defendant's statement that he was going to beat this in court.
|
|||||
| C. C. v. State, CA02-466,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where teacher was familiar with juvenile's handwriting, it was proper to allow teacher to compare note allegedly written by juvenile to homework samples for the purposes of authenticating the note and admitting the note into evidence.
|
|||||
| Campbell v. State, CACR 02-574,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's trial for battery, the court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a continuance, as the subject witness was not the victim's treating physician, and defendant filed no affidavit or verified motion in support of his motion.
|
|||||
| Franklin v. State, CACR02-323,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's admission that he was present in the stolen vehicle, along with his flight from the police and his attempt to avoid capture, was sufficient evidence to support the finding that he knew or had reason to know the car was stolen.
|
|||||
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. |
