 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Broadston v. Parsons, CA02-598,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where property owners failed to show that their use of a road was without permission, they were not entitled to a prescriptive easement; there could be no easement by necessity without a showing of necessity at the time that title was severed.
|
|||||
| Burnett v. Phila. Life Ins. Co., CA 02-832,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 2, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improperly granted where the decedent's illness would be a material fact; the issue was whether the illness was disclosed to the insurer via the agent.
|
|||||
| Carter v. State, CACR02-533,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's guilty plea at probation revocation hearing, coupled with imposition of fine and probation, constituted conviction which deprived trial court of jurisdiction at later probation revocation hearing to modify sentence that had been executed.
|
|||||
| Cory v. Keeling, CA02-440,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a resident repeatedly purchased hay from a non-resident, he did business in the non-resident's state and had the minimum contacts required for personal jurisdiction; the non-resident's foreign judgment should have been registered.
|
|||||
| Doolan v. Burton, CA02-801,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where mother sought a change in child custody, alleging abuse, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying a motion to allow additional testimony by a doctor, and mother failed to seek a human services report to meet her burden of proof.
|
|||||
| Dowden v. State, CACR02-913,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 2, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant did not waive his right to a jury trial and was not present when counsel and prosecutor agreed the case would be tried without a jury, defendant's right to a jury trial was violated, and defendant was entitled to a new trial.
|
|||||
| Farmers Home Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bank of Pocahontas, CA 01-712,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 2, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an insurer's letter to an insured regarding the potential cancellation of a standard mortgage insurance policy did not constitute a demand, the policy was still in effect when a residence was later destroyed by fire.
|
|||||
| Fields v. State, CA CR 02-319,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 2, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A recorded telephone conversation between a defense witness and a prosecutor was not prohibited, where the prosecutor was a party and consented to the interception. The jury had to determine if prior convictions established elements of DWI.
|
|||||
| Frigon v. Frigon, CA 02-298,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 2, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where monthly disability income benefits had accrued to former husband, the benefits were a marital asset subject to division, and trial court erred in finding they had no cash value and awarding the asset solely to former husband.
|
|||||
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. |
