 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Booker v. State, No. CR 05-656,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no Sixth Amendment violation in a drug case based on ineffective assistance of counsel based on, inter alia, the denial of a motion to suppress evidence because this did not necessarily show a deficient performance. Moreover, the failure to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct was merely trial strategy.
|
|||||
| Bunch v. State, No. CA CR 05-726,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied petitioner's pro se motion for copy of, or access to, transcript lodged on direct appeal where he did not show how transcript was necessary or that specific points could not be properly raised without access to transcript. He did not allege that transcript contained specific evidence that supported his claims for postconviction relief.
|
|||||
| Campbell v. State, No. CR 05-706,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied a petition for postconviction relief where it was untimely under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c). The petition, which should have been filed within 90 days of the date of entry of judgment, was not filed by petitioner until 184 days after entry of the amended judgment and commitment order.
|
|||||
| Combs v. City of Springdale, No. 05-1032,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a landowner's appeal as the landowner did not perfect his appeal by filing it with a certified record of the city council proceedings that constituted the final decision under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-425 as required by Ark. Dist. Ct. R. 9.
|
|||||
| First Nat'l Bank v. Mayberry, No. 04-1381,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where trial court failed to rule on bank's Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate documents related to foreclosure sale because of a claimed clerical error, Supreme Court of Arkansas lacked jurisdiction to hear appeal until there was a final, appealable order, and motion did not fall within "deemed denied" provision of Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 4(b)(1).
|
|||||
| French v. State, No. CR 05-690,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal of order denying petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-105 in controlled substance case, as appellant did not file appeal in circuit court where he was in custody; circuit court where he did file petition did not have personal jurisdiction over him and could not release him from custody.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, No. CR05-1030,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant was under the influence of crack cocaine at the time a confession was given in a murder and robbery case, it was not involuntary because the evidence showed that the high only lasted about 20 minutes; the statement was given about 3 hours after defendant was taken in for questioning.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, No. CR 06-150,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal of a dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed, under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c), in an aggravated robbery and theft case because appellant's petition was untimely, as the file mark indicated that the petition was not filed until after the due date.
|
|||||
| Lukach v. Norris, No. 05-1344,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dismissed petitioner's appeal of order denying his application for writ of habeas corpus because while he attempted to couch majority of his claims as defects that resulted in invalid judgment or lack of jurisdiction, bases for those claims were clearly issues that should have been raised on appeal or in petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.
|
|||||
| Mack v. Sutter, No. 05-748,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where no material question of fact remained in client's claim he had been terminated from his job due to his race, court did not err in granting summary judgment to his attorney in subsequent malpractice suit; client failed to establish a prima facie case of race-based discrimination by, inter alia, failing to show he was terminated due to race.
|
|||||
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. |
