 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hill v. State, CA CR 02-700,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 12, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of defendant's appeal was proper, where the document did not state that defendant reserved his right to appeal the suppression hearing; moreover, the document failed to demonstrate that the trial court approved a conditional plea.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Garrett, CA 02-170,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 12, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In will contest, trial court erred in finding that decedent's spouse and brother did not procure decedent's will. However, nothing in record showed that they overrode decedent's discretion or destroyed his free will, and error was harmless.
|
|||||
| In re Three Pieces of Prop. Located in Monticello, CA 02-223,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly ordered forfeiture of three homes, where preponderance of the evidence was that the properties were used to commit drug offenses or were purchased with drug profits. Equitable lien to owner's mother was voided.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. Jackson, CA 02-539,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 12, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce action, where service on husband was obtained by warning order, without filing of affidavit that diligent inquiry had been made into husband's whereabouts, subsequent proceedings and default decree were void.
|
|||||
| Justice Furniture v. Cameron, CA02-679,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the company's motion to set aside the default judgment. Even if the buyer agreed to extend time, the company failed to present evidence as to why it did not enter an appearance for four months.
|
|||||
| Lovell v. State, CACR 02-726,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's probation ended in 1998 and an arrest was not made nor a warrant issued for violation of probation prior to the expiration of his probation, the trial court had no jurisdiction to revoke his probation.
|
|||||
| Lyman v. Ivy, CA02-722,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in denying a mother's request to relocate with her child where mother was in direct contempt of an order requiring her to allow the father visitation and to consult the father before taking action concerning the child's well-being.
|
|||||
| Marbley v. State, CA CR 02-689,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 12, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence of nonconsensual restraint by defendant against the victim for the purpose of kidnapping; the victim was forced at gunpoint to go home with defendant instead of being let out of the car.
|
|||||
| Maverick Tube Corp. v. Winters, CA02-716,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 12, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The fact that an employee was able to return to college after suffering a back injury at work did not mean that the healing period terminated; the medical evidence showed that she still required treatment after she returned to classes.
|
|||||
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. |
