 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Concrete Wallsystems of Ark., Inc. v. Master Paint Indus. Coating Corp., CA05-1046,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in dismissing the concrete company's complaint against a Kansas paint company for lack of personal jurisdiction because the paint company had filed a materialmen's lien on the concrete company's Arkansas real estate, which was sufficient contact to subject it to the jurisdiction of Arkansas courts without offending due process.
|
|||||
| Connally v. Connally, CA05-897,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in dismissing ex-husband's motion for insufficient service because he failed to comply with special requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(3), which applied in post-decree, continuing-jurisdiction case and required service on a party by mail or commercial delivery and that service comply with Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(8)(A), (C).
|
|||||
| Hardy v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, CA05-918,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of an individual's claim for declaratory relief pursuant to Declaratory Judgment Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-101 et seq., was affirmed as it was not the proper forum to determine if individual's son had a claim for relief after witnessing his sister's death following an accident with a driver.
|
|||||
| Hendrix v. State, CACR05-180,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for aggravated robbery was affirmed because even though "show-up" identification was unnecessarily suggestive, under totality of circumstances there was no substantial likelihood of misidentification because victim had significant opportunity to view defendant, had previously worked with him, and knew him from neighborhood.
|
|||||
| Hill v. State, CACR 05-992,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence existed to convict defendant of two counts of delivery of cocaine in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401(a) as the individual testified that she bought from defendant on two occasions, and defendant admitted in his statement to the police that he sold cocaine.
|
|||||
| Ken's Disc. Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Meeks, CA05-208,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a minor was injured while riding his bicycle on a sidewalk in front of a business, the owner of the business owned no duty to inspect the premises to be certain they were safe. In a premises liability action brought by the minor, the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict for the business.
|
|||||
| Logan County v. Aydelott, No. CA05-1050,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 22, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order awarding permanent partial disability benefits to employee was upheld where his testimony, together with medical records presented at hearing, showed that he had pain and muscle spasms or rigidity in his cervical spine following a work-related vehicle accident; causal connection required by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(F)(ii) was established.
|
|||||
| McIntosh v. State, CACR02-1266,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in not bifurcating defendant's trial into guilt phase and sentencing phase where Ark. Code Ann. § 16-97-101 (Supp. 2005) required bifurcation only in jury trials that included any felony charges, not all "jury trials." Because defendant was charged with misdemeanor third-degree domestic battery, bifurcation was not required.
|
|||||
| Moiser v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-366,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 22, 2006, DECIDED
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court held that a trial court was clearly erroneous in finding that a father's child was a dependent-neglected child under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(17) and (36) because after the father was incarcerated there were two different family members who stated they were willing to care for the child.
|
|||||
| Nix v. Owen, CA05-246,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS TWO AND THREE, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting plaintiffs' motion for directed verdict in quiet title action because the trial court failed to analyze defendants' argument that the prior owners of the disputed tract of land had adversely possessed the land and then deeded it to them. It was error to grant a directed verdict without at least addressing the evidence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
