 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bradford v. State, CACR06-776,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rebriefing was ordered in case related to controlled substance offenses because defendant failed to adequately abstract record in brief, as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2(a)(5), as defendant did not provide appellate court with condensation of witnesses' testimony, but instead reproduced it verbatim in question-and-answer format.
|
|||||
| Coombs v. Hot Springs Vill. Prop. Owners Ass'n, CA05-832,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A JNOV was properly granted in a malicious prosecution case where the passenger of a truck was arrested when the vehicle bumped a key-card entry gate; even if there was no damage to the gate or a mistake about such, there was still probable cause for an arrest for criminal mischief or an attempt under Ark. R. Crim. P. 4.1(c).
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, CACR06-870,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appellate court was unable to consider the substance of defendant's arguments on appeal because, in his motion for a directed verdict, defendant failed to specify how the State's case was deficient, as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c); defendant also failed to renew his directed-verdict challenge at the close of all of the evidence.
|
|||||
| Dykes v. State, CACR06-853,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order revoking defendant's suspended sentences and sentencing him to five years in prison after he committed the offense of rape of 16-year-old girl was upheld where trial court did not err in denying his motion to call the victim's mother as a witness so that she could testify that the victim had made false accusations against others in the past.
|
|||||
| Gulley v. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr., No. CA 06-980,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was substantial evidence, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102, to support the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's finding that the employee did not prove that she was entitled to a permanent impairment rating of five percent to the body as a whole as a result of her compensable fall on October 15, 2002, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-704(c)(1)(B).
|
|||||
| Hooder v. Life of the S. Ins. Co. , CA06-658,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was properly awarded to an insurer in a wife's action to recover under a credit life insurance policy because the insured's material misrepresentation about the ongoing treatment for his heart problems was a sufficient basis for the insurer to rescind the policy under Ark. Code Ann. § 23-79-107(a)(2) and (c) (1999).
|
|||||
| King v. Ark. HHS, CA 06-1094,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly determined that two children were dependent-neglected under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(18)(A) (Supp. 2005) where the evidence showed that the family stayed from time to time in an abandoned home, which was in shambles; the house had no running water or utilities, there were holes in the floor, and the roof leaked.
|
|||||
| LaFort v. State, CACR06-847,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for battery in the second degree in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-202(a)(4)(C) was appropriate because the evidence was clear that defendant intended to restrain the victim. The victim testified that defendant grabbed her, threw her into a chair, and pushed her down anytime she tried to stand up.
|
|||||
| Loredo v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA06-610,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was clear and convincing evidence warranting termination of father's parental rights pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3) given father's prison sentence and deportation, and inability to maintain significant contact with or provide material support for the child; it was in child's best interest to terminate father's parental rights.
|
|||||
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. |
