 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| $ 15,956 in United States Currency v. State, No. 05-671,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 6, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A forfeiture of a large amount of cash found in a vehicle was upheld because the rebuttable presumption in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-505(a)(6) applied, even though only residue of a controlled substances was found; moreover, the cash was in close proximity to drugs found in second vehicle that was traveling in tandem.
|
|||||
| Ark. Wildlife Fed'n v. Ark. Soil & Water Conservation Comm'n, No. 05-1009,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 6, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission (ASWCC) in appellants' suit challenging its authority to enter into a project with U.S. Army where ASWCC's duties did not constitute type of control of wildlife resources that was reserved to Arkansas Game and Fish Commission in Ark. Const. amend. 35, § 1.
|
|||||
| Ellis v. State, No. CR05-1116,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 6, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neither defendant's denial of motions for directed verdict or mistrial was preserved for review; motion for directed verdict was untimely pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1, as it was renewed after the jury had been charged and defense counsel failed to move contemporaneously for mistrial when his objections to questioning of witness were sustained.
|
|||||
| Gorman v. State, No. CR05-793,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 6, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient for conviction of driving with a suspended license pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-105 where, inter alia, defendant admitted to officer he knew his license was suspended and, no Miranda warning was needed; defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation as statement was given in the course of a routine traffic stop.
|
|||||
| In re Hively, No. 06-298,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 6, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, No. CR 86-58,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 6, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied petition to have jurisdiction reinvested in a trial court to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis where the issue of the racial makeup of the jury was raised in petitioner's postconviction relief proceeding. Because the issue was settled, petitioner had not stated a claim that was cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding.
|
|||||
| Lawson v. State, No. CR 06-212,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 6, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court denied petitioner's motion for rule on clerk after he failed to tender a record within 90 days of filing his appeal, as required by Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 5(a), as applied through Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 4(a), because it was not the duty of the trial court clerk, or the responsibility of anyone other than petitioner, to perfect the appeal.
|
|||||
| Moore v. State, No. CR 05-691,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 6, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment was not violated by trial counsel's failure to assert a due process argument based on a pre-arrest delay because there was no prejudice shown; moreover, the failure to enter information into a computer was not an intentional act designed to gain a tactical advantage.
|
|||||
| Mt. Pure LLC v. Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc., No. 05-837,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 6, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court denied appellees' motion to dismiss an appeal, and trial court retained jurisdiction of a company's claims against appellees because where some of the claims were resolved by nonsuit and some by summary judgment, there were no final appealable orders under Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 2(a) granting the appellate court jurisdiction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
