 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Faucher v. Bitzer, CA01-526,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alienation of children from father by mother was change in circumstance sufficient for chancellor to consider change in custody was in best interests of children. Award was not changed to punish mother, but to preserve relationship with father.
|
|||||
| Fulcher v. State, CACR01-353,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying continuance of revocation hearing where defense had 15 months to secure information he requested, and did not err by refusing defendant psychiatric evaluation.
|
|||||
| Gilbert v. Rainey, CA 01-990,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Support deed was properly rescinded for failure of consideration when grantee was unable to provide agreed support to grantor. Parol evidence was admissible to show consideration not recited in deed.
|
|||||
| Grant v. Meek, CA01-929,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Patient was not entitled to a new trial based on the inadequacy of the jury award against a doctor where the record contained sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that her medical expenses were either unreasonable or unnecessary.
|
|||||
| Holmesley v. Walk, CA01-1121,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court chancellor mistakenly failed to follow the law of the case on remand where he allowed the second floor of a house to remain intact even though the upper floor obstructed a neighbor's view of a lake in violation of a restrictive covenant.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Jones, CA01-567,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Awarding custody of children to father and increasing visitation rights to mother was in children's best interests, as the father was now maintaining a stable home and the mother initially wanted the children raised by both parents.
|
|||||
| Lamb v. State, CA CR 01-846,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where police officer had no particularized, specific, or articulable reason to stop defendant, but did so only based upon supposition of a victim, the police-citizen encounter amounted to an unreasonable seizure.
|
|||||
| Loring v. Loring, CA 01-998,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former husband was not entitled to credit for that part of former wife's mortgage payments due after marital home went into foreclosure as he was not held responsible for them and divorce decree made him responsible for foreclosure costs.
|
|||||
| Morning v. State, CACR 01-1041,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify defendant's sentence on State's second petition to revoke as sentence already put into place could not be modified, and subsequently-enacted law allowing modification applied only prospectively.
|
|||||
| Shepherd v. Combs, CA01-494,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding increased child support to mother based on father's evidence. Father's ability to earn, and his failure to provide certain financial records, were sufficient to increase award.
|
|||||
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. |
