 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Parmley v. State, No. CR 05-141,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In his appeal of an order denying his motion for postconviction relief, the court denied defendant's motion for leave to file a brief with a 50-page argument rather than the 25 pages allowed by Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(e) because it could not be said that the 25-page limitation was too stringent.
|
|||||
| Springs v. State, No. CR06-221,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Watson v. State, No. CR 06-219,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While supreme court no longer required an affidavit admitting fault before it would consider a motion for rule on clerk, attorney should candidly admit fault where he erred and was responsible for the failure to perfect the appeal. Attorney did candidly admit that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part; thus, motion was granted.
|
|||||
| Windsong Enters. v. Upton, No. 05-616,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to an owner in an action alleging tortious interference with a business expectancy because there was no expectancy in the opportunity to build condominiums other than the one subject to the contingency in a bill of assurances; an owner allegedly obtained support to amend the covenant to exclude condominiums.
|
|||||
| Yankaway v. State, No. CR 05-1071,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 23, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for capital murder was affirmed because the skip rule applied and any error that might have resulted from trial court's failure to instruct jury on second-degree murder was cured where trial court instructed jury on lesser-included offense of first-degree murder and convicted defendant of greater offense of capital murder.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
