 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barb's 3-D Demo Serv. v. Director, Ark. Empl. Sec. Dep't, E 98-247,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 22, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Food demonstrators in retail establishments were employees of demonstration booking agency for purposes of imposition of unemployment insurance tax.
|
|||||
| Barker v. Clark, CA 99-702,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS THREE AND FOUR, March 22, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A plaintiff's discovery requests were properly limited and his submission of other act evidence was properly excluded in a negligence action, but plaintiff was entitled to a res ipsa loquitur jury instruction.
|
|||||
| Castleberry v. Elite Lamp Co., CA 99-1028,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 22, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arkansas Worker's Compensation Commission improperly disregarded an opinion by a judge that was never appealed. That decision was res judicata, which prevented discontinuance of benefits. Late payment penalty upheld.
|
|||||
| Farmer v. Adkins Painting Co., No. CA99-1086,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 22, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' Compensation Commission's decision to deny further benefits to appellant employee was supported by substantial evidence where commission accepted the opinion of a neurosurgeon that appellant could return to work.
|
|||||
| Fobbs v. State, No. CACR99-921,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 22, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant's grounds for reversal of his criminal conviction were meritless, and appellant's counsel had fulfilled the requirements to be relieved from the case, the court affirmed the conviction and relieved counsel.
|
|||||
| Fowler v. State, No. CACR 99-905,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 22, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's suspension of appellant's sentence was proper where their findings of two violations of his sentence were not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
|
|||||
| GEO Specialty Chem., Inc. v. Clingan, CA 99-897,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS THREE AND FOUR, March 22, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because neurological testing and claimant's doctors' opinions supported workers' compensation commission's award of additional medical benefits for claimant's recurring back problems, award was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Griffis v. Walker, No. CA 99-938,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 22, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the arrangement between the parties was a bailment, appellant's retention of the cricket boxes constituted a conversion. Appellee was not required to place himself in jeopardy in order to mitigate his damages.
|
|||||
| Hawkins v. State, No. CACR 99-911,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 22, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's failed to show the charging instrument was defective because he had notice of the offense with which he was charged, and he raised the issue of defect after the trial had begun, precluding preservation for review.
|
|||||
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. |
