 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mashburn v. Norris, No. 05-23,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 31, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In petitioner's appeal of the denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus, the court did not need to consider his motion for an extension of time to file his brief because it was apparent that he could not prevail in the appeal if it was permitted to go forward because he failed to demonstrate a ground for the writ.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. State, CR 05-228,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 31, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's attorney stated in the motion for rule on clerk that the record on appeal was tendered late due to a mistake on his part. Supreme court had previously stated that an attorney should candidly admit fault where he had erred and was responsible for failure to perfect appeal. Because attorney candidly admitted fault, the motion was granted.
|
|||||
| Otte v. Ark. State Bd. of Acupuncture, 04-901,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 31, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly affirmed the decision of the Arkansas State Board of Acupuncture and Related Techniques in denying the acupuncturist a license where, under Ark. Code Ann. § 17-102-305, the board could use a nationally recognized national exam, which it did; it was the acupuncturist's duty to take and pass the exam, which he did not do.
|
|||||
| Patterson v. State, No. CR 05-167,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 31, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's motion for a belated appeal was denied because the inmate failed to state good cause for his failure to conform to Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 4(a), which required that the inmate file a timely notice of appeal within 30 days of the date the order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was entered.
|
|||||
| Pierce v. State, CR 05-230,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 31, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rickenbacker v. Norris, 03-1255,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 31, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant was sentenced to five years' probation and fined, there was no sentence imposed under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-402(e), and Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(f) applied; the trial court did not err in sentencing defendant to ten years' imprisonment as it could have done so in the first place.
|
|||||
| Roston v. State, CR 05-277,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 31, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court granted appellant's motion for rule on clerk because appellant's attorney candidly admitted that he was at fault for mistakenly placing an order for an extension of time to file the record in his case file rather than timely filing it with the trial court clerk.
|
|||||
| Shaw v. State, No. CR 05-52,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 31, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sluder v. Steak & Ale of Little Rock, Inc., 03-1138,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, March 31, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In order to sustain an action under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-126-104, the patrons had to establish in their pleadings a connection between the sale to a clearly intoxicated person and the subsequent injury to another person; the patrons failed to plead the elements to include that connection; therefore, their complaint was insufficient.
|
|||||
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. |
