 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barbee v. State, CACR 00-486,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's failure to move for directed verdict or dismissal prior to probation revocation sentencing prohibited appellate court from considering his argument about circumstances which contributed to revocation.
|
|||||
| Gillihan v. Gillihan, CA 00-648,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in awarding wife alimony when divorce decree was rendered. Trial court properly applied factors in determining whether to award alimony and did not err in relying on husband end-of-year earnings.
|
|||||
| Murry v. State, CACR 00-980,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellant failed to move for dismissal at the close of the evidence, his contention that the evidence was insufficient to show that he entered the building intending to commit a crime was not preserved for review.
|
|||||
| Omni Holding & Dev. Corp. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., Inc., CA00-811,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of insurance claim was affirmed as jury's finding that the owner of a combine was responsible for the combine's loss in a fire was supported by evidence from which the jury could have inferred the owner was responsible for the fire.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, CACR 00-01039,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rape and sexual abuse conviction was affirmed as the trial court properly permitted the State to re-open its case and have a witness clarify her testimony after the defendant filed a motion for a directed verdict.
|
|||||
| Soterra v. Albert, CA00-776,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The chancery court's order quieting title in landowners was remanded where the court decree did not describe the subject tract of land with sufficient specificity so that it could be identified solely by reference to the decree.
|
|||||
| Springs v. State, CACR99-715,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of suspended sentence upheld where sufficient evidence was presented he possessed and delivered drugs, contrary to law. Despite conflicting testimony on delivery issue, trial court's credibility assessment undisturbed.
|
|||||
| Tyler v. Talburt, CA 00-898,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 11, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arkansas chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act to consider a petition to modify the spousal support obligations contained in a Texas divorce decree.
|
|||||
| Vickers v. Morrison, CA00-914,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 11, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's admission of summary was proper; contractor could recover under quantum meruit even if he breached and did not substantially perform contract; contractor was obligated to exercise good faith and fair dealing in cost-plus contract.
|
|||||
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. |
