 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Helena-West Helena Sch. Dist. #2 v. Circuit Court, No. 06-1284,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 15, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting parents' request for a TRO before the school board made its final decision on expelling two students. The parents failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the school board. There was no final administrative action to review under Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-507.
|
|||||
| Hodges v. Norris, No. 06-1021,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 15, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of an inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was proper pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103 because he failed to show any invalidity of the commitment in the case or demonstrate that there was a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, No. CR 06-1304,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 15, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The granting of the inmate's motion for access to record after counsel appointed to represent him in a Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition was relieved as counsel was appropriate because the inmate was proceeding pro se and thus, the record was necessary in order to prepare the brief.
|
|||||
| Kiersey v. Jeffrey, No. 06-1054,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 15, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment entered against a paternal grandmother in an outrage case based on her act of taking her grandson during a custody dispute was reversed on appeal because the emotional distress suffered by the grandson and his mother was not so severe that no reasonable person could have been expected to endure it.
|
|||||
| Malone v. State, No. CR 86-206,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 15, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's petitions to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis were denied because a claim asserting error as to the correct application of law was not cognizable and he did not show that he was subjected to double jeopardy by not being charged with simple robbery as well as aggravated robbery.
|
|||||
| Ormond Enters. v. Point Remove Wetlands Reclamation & Irrigation Improvement Dist., No. 06-1135,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 15, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An owner's challenge to the inclusion of property in an improvement district was improperly dismissed based on timeliness because a 30-day time limit in Ark. Code Ann. § 14-117-207 dealt with appeals from the establishment of a district, and there was no time limit set forth under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-117-208 for the owner's type of appeal.
|
|||||
| Sanders v. State, No. CR07-196,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 15, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There were only two possible reasons for an appeal not being timely perfected: either the party or attorney filing the appeal was at fault, or there was good reason. Supreme court granted defendant's motion for rule on the clerk because defendant's attorney stated in the motion that he admitted responsibility for failing to timely file the record.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, No. CR 06-938,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 15, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's first motion for a belated appeal was denied, a second motion was also dismissed because he was not entitled to proceed under Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 2(e) with a subsequent motion.
|
|||||
| Summerville v. Thrower, No. 06-501,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 15, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A dismissal of a medical malpractice case for failure to file an affidavit within 30 days of filing a complaint was reversed because Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-209(B)(3)(A) was unconstitutional; it conflicted with Ark. R. Civ. P. 3 and Ark. Const. amend. 80, § 3.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
