 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Heavrin v. Threet, No. CA 99-881,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 22, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the parties did not agree as to the location of the boundary line of their properties, it was clearly erroneous for the lower court to find a boundary by acquiesence.
|
|||||
| Hosto v. Intellinet, No. CA99-918,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 22, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Seller of interest in limited liability company could not enforce his contract against successor to purchaser of his interest, where contract for successor's asset purchase did not mention liability to original seller.
|
|||||
| Langley v. State, No. CACR 99-1136,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 22, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since appellant received no fine, his sentence was not put into execution and the trial court was authorized to modify his conditions of probation.
|
|||||
| Limon v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., No. CA99-859,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, March 22, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| McNamara v. Bohn, CA 99-835,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 22, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Breach of contract decision was upheld because it was consistent with contract language for sale of carpet-cleaning business, parol evidence could be considered to show fraudulent inducement, and damage award was not error.
|
|||||
| Pond v. State, CA CR 99-1055,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 22, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The jury could infer intent where the circumstances surrounding the crime provided substantial evidence from which the fact-finder could conclude that appellant intended to commit robbery.
|
|||||
| Self v. Addison Prods. Co., No. CA99-826,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 22, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment in an action by appellee, a building contractor, as there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment that would toll the statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Arkansas PSC, CA 98-1249,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND FOUR, March 22, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dispute over tariffs, court found no error in appellee's interpretation of term and statute, or decision that appellant phone company's tariff was applicable to all switched-access service provided.
|
|||||
| Speights v. State, No. CACR 99-997,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 22, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the State provided both the DNA results and its expert witness's name, the court held that no discovery violation was committed, and the trial court had not abused its discretion in refusing to exclude the evidence.
|
|||||
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. |
