 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arkansas Steel Erectors, Inc. v. M. C. White Constr. Co., CA00-507,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 4, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment granted to general contractor in error, because genuine questions remained unanswered as to the amount of work performed, modification of the construction contracts by the parties' actions, and the remedies provided for delays.
|
|||||
| Azzurro v. State, CACR00-907,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 4, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellants, convicted of operating a gambling house and possessing and operating payoff mechanisms, failed to preserve appellate arguments because they did not renew motion for directed verdict and abandoned other arguments.
|
|||||
| Bowen v. State, CA CR 00-537,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 4, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No error in failure to dismiss appellants' case for violating right to speedy trial when trial occurred 944 days after arrest. Appellants failed to timely object to excludable time-periods and jointly requested continuance with State.
|
|||||
| Cavaliere v. Skelton, CA 00-772,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 4, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellees established appellants' property was covered by subdivision's restrictive covenant against non-household pets. Appellants failed to present any evidence to support their asserted affirmative defenses of laches, estoppel, and waiver.
|
|||||
| Corrugated Mach., Inc. v. Campbell, CA00-873,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 4, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court's findings that the contract was for a $ 30 hourly rate and that $ 4,000 to $ 6,000 was merely an estimate was affirmed, the appellate court also affirmed the amount of the judgment.
|
|||||
| Davenport v. Lee, CA 00-696,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 4, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of the action was unduly harsh. The initial complaint was not a nullity for purposes of the tolling of the statute of limitations, but was instead an amendable defect.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Arkansas Heart Hosp., CA 00-668,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 4, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As worker failed to prove that her need for medical treatment after she was hurt in an auto accident was causally related to her earlier compensable injury, or that she was permanently disabled, commission's ruling denying benefits was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Ecton v. State, CACR 00-880,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 4, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant raised for the first time on appeal her arguments that her probation was improperly revoked, she waived the arguments and the revocation was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Fleming Cos. v. Tucker Abstract Co., CA 00-959,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 4, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the order appealed from adjudicated fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties involved, without certification from the trial court the order was not a final appealable order.
|
|||||
| Frawley v. Nickolich, CA 00-872,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 4, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Agency's decision that bail bondsman solicited business where prisoners were confined, in violation of statute, was supported by substantial evidence, and penalties imposed were not unduly harsh or abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
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. |
