 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lovesee v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA06-816,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mother's parental rights were properly terminated, Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341, because the case was ongoing for over nineteen months, there was testimony that the mother did not utilize what she had learned, her inconsistency was harmful to the girls, and it would put them right back at "square one" with regard to their behavior problems.
|
|||||
| Myers v. State, No. CACR 06-709,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly denied a motion to suppress evidence because defendant lacked standing to challenge the search, Fourth Amendment, because he failed to establish any legitimate expectation of privacy in the trailer; it was undisputed that he did not live in the trailer and had no ownership interest in the trailer as it was owned by his mother.
|
|||||
| Potts v. State, No. CACR06-810,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of theft by receiving, three counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of theft of property, his motion for a directed verdict alleging the State failed to meet its burden of proof was inadequate to preserve review of his claim that the victims' identification of him as the perpetrator was not credible.
|
|||||
| Riley v. Ark. HHS, CA06-893,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating father's parental rights was upheld because any error resulting from premature filing of termination petition was cured once 12-month threshold of Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341 was satisfied; because child was placed in foster care on April 18, 2005, and termination order was not entered until May 3, 2006, the threshold was satisfied.
|
|||||
| Southern Tel. Const. Co. v. Harris, NO. CA06-921,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A benefits claimant was properly awarded additional medical benefits and TTD benefits where no doctor had released him to return to work after a back injury, and a second neurosurgeon had ordered a functional-capacity evaluation, which an employer had refused to pay for. The claimant was still in his healing period.
|
|||||
| State v. Hatchie Coon Hunting & Fishing Club, Inc., CA 06-797,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS FOUR AND ONE, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's order determining that a fishing club owned an island located between the club's riparian property was supported by expert testimony that the island was formed by accretion to and avulsion from the club's riparian property. The State failed to prove its affirmative offenses of adverse possession and laches.
|
|||||
| Stephens v. State, CACR06-687,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's first-degree murder conviction was overturned and the case was remanded for a new trial where a witness's prior inconsistent statement, which was taken by a detective, was not taken during an "official proceeding" contemplated by Ark. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(i); hence, the witness's statement was improperly admitted during defendant's trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
