 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| McGhee v. Witcher, CA 02-546,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, March 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners election to pursue informal remedies in attempting to prevent improper use of a neighboring parcel as a commercial day-care center did not waive their right to allege that the center violated a bill of assurance against such use.
|
|||||
| Metro. Nat'l Bank v. La Sher Oil Co., CA 02-673,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where business served a writ of garnishment on bank, but bank had a secured interest in customer's proceeds, court imposed an erroneous standard of proof in ruling deposits were not "identifiable proceeds." Lowest-intermediate-balance rule applied.
|
|||||
| Minor v. State, CACR02-672,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a first degree murder case, the trial court erred in not giving a manslaughter jury instruction; there was "the slightest evidence" to support the giving of such an instruction because defendant alleged that the victim had threatened him.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. State, CACR 01-600,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's sentence on revocation, combined with his original sentence, exceeded the statutory range for a class D felony, the sentence was an illegal sentence, and had to be reversed and remanded for resentencing.
|
|||||
| Montgomery v. State, CACR02-664,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant lacked standing to challenge arrest occurring on private property at nighttime because defendant was not the owner of the property and did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property. Marijuana seizure was upheld.
|
|||||
| Rheem Mfg. Co. v. Thomas, CA02-968,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, March 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was substantial evidence to support the finding that the employee sustained a specific-incident injury while working for the employer. The evidence was enough to support a finding of casual connection between the injury and the job.
|
|||||
| Robbins v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA02-690,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, March 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in terminating parental rights where Arkansas Department of Human Services made meaningful effort to rehabilitate the home, and the mother had not remedied the conditions and the father did not provide meaningful support.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. State, CA 02-742,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence obtained as a result of defendant's statement was not tainted and did not require suppression; the trial court believed the officer's testimony that he did not threaten or coerce defendant into making his statements.
|
|||||
| Rossini v. Dir. of Ark. Empl. Sec. Dep't, E 02-166,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS FOUR AND ONE, March 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was undisputed that claimant chose to continue using abusive language towards co-worker even after her supervisor instructed her to calm down, and such action violated employer's rules. Thus, claimant was properly discharged for misconduct.
|
|||||
| Sisk v. State, CA CR 02-649,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, March 19, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's original sentence to probation and suspended sentence was illegal, but a subsequent sentence to probation was lawful and could be the subject of a revocation action. Evidence supported the finding that defendant violated probation.
|
|||||
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. |
