 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lenz v. Ark. HHS, CA06-862,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied grandmother's motion to intervene in termination of parental rights proceeding where the motion to intervene was untimely under Ark. R. Civ. P. 24; the grandmother waited almost two years after the child was taken into custody by the Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services to become involved in the proceedings.
|
|||||
| Matthews v. Matthews, CA 06-680,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In post-divorce proceedings, a trial court did not err in awarding lump-sum child support payment to wife of 15 percent of net proceeds from sale of husband's stock in family business because stock sale proceeds were properly considered "income" under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-201(4) for child support purposes; award did not result in windfall to wife.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. State, CACR06-713,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: From his rape and incest conviction where defendant challenged the denial of his motion for directed verdict under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1, because defendant changed the grounds for his motion on appeal, the appellate court would not consider his argument.
|
|||||
| Nash v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co., CA 06-611,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A reduction clause in a motor vehicle insurance policy did not violate Ark. Code Ann. § 23-89-209(a)(5) because it only offered protection to insureds; therefore, a passenger was not entitled to recover pursuant to an underinsured motorist policy after receiving payment under the liability provision of the same policy.
|
|||||
| Nesler v. State, CACR06-359,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a manufacture and possession of methamphetamine case, although the detective failed to inform the judge that the informant was a citizen informant as per Ark. R. Crim. P. 13.1, it was reasonable for the officer to conclude the search was supported by reasonable cause as the informant had come into the station on his own and implicated defendant.
|
|||||
| Olivas v. Ark. HHS, CA06-1019,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating mother's parental rights to her child pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) was upheld where the child had been in and out of her custody for at least 12 months; at the time of the termination hearing, he had been in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services for two years and three months.
|
|||||
| Penny v. Liberty Bank of Ark. , CA06-646,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a contract action, a default judgment and a summary judgment were not set aside under Ark. R. Civ. P. 60 because two parties properly relied on an address placed in an answer by a first guarantor, and the address was required under Ark. R. Civ. P. 11(a); moreover, there was no evidence that the pleadings were not actually received.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. State, CACR06-698,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since there was insufficient evidence of intoxication, a conviction for felony-negligent homicide under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-105 was modified to show a conviction for misdemeanor-negligent homicide; defendant caused a death when she failed to apply the brakes while traveling at a high rate of speed around a curve.
|
|||||
| SSI, Inc. v. Lohman, CA06-875,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a workers' compensation case, there was no error in awarding a benefits claimant a sixty-percent wage-loss disability under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522(b) where his age, intellectual range, impairment rating, prior employment, and complaints of pain and difficulty sleeping were considered; his depression was not considered.
|
|||||
| Teater v. State, CACR06-936,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder were overturned and case was remanded for third trial where trial court erred in not instructing jury on the defense of mental disease or defect; the law of the case doctrine mandated that the trial court instruct the jury on the defense of mental disease or defect.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
