 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brady v. Brady, CA01-949,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 3, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Change in mother's needs, and increase in father's income and ability to pay, constituted material changes in circumstances that supported trial court's modification of father's child support obligation.
|
|||||
| Fleece v. Kankey, CA 01-1020,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 3, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that landowners could not be awarded damages for the replacement value of trees removed from their property because they had no market value and the removal of the trees when installing a new fence improved the area.
|
|||||
| Gardea v. State, CACR 01-926,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 3, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to suppress statements and cocaine was not error, as there was no custodial interrogation, officer had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant, and no reasonable suspicion was required to conduct canine search.
|
|||||
| King v. State, CA CR 01-446,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 3, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress, as initial encounter between officer and defendant did not involve a seizure, and defendant freely gave statement admitting to having drugs.
|
|||||
| Krimmel v. State, CACR01-589,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 3, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for second-degree murder was affirmed. Renewal, made after jury retired to deliberate, of motion for directed verdict of acquittal, although considered, came too late under rule to preserve sufficiency issue for review.
|
|||||
| Landers v. Jameson, CA01-269,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 3, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit judge erred in finding that constitutionality of statutes was implicitly decided by appellate court and was law of the case; homeowner did not address question of statutes' constitutionality, and question was not at issue in first appeal.
|
|||||
| Petty v. State, CACR01-1173,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 3, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant a directed verdict in rape case because uncorroborated testimony of child rape victim satisfied the substantial evidence requirement and supported finding of penetration.
|
|||||
| Superior Surgical Mfg. v. Pride, CA 01-1112,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 3, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Strict construction of workers' compensation statute demonstrated that employee who suffered scheduled injury received benefits during healing period until return to work, regardless of whether employee was incapacitated or not.
|
|||||
| Walton v. State, CACR 01-750,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 3, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not object to victim's testimony during hearing, or make request to strike it, thus it was not preserved for review. Even if properly preserved, victim's prior inconsistent statement went to weight, not admissibility of testimony.
|
|||||
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. |
