 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barnett v. State, CACR04-833,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of misdemeanor theft of property under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-36-103 where the trial court was not required to believe defendant's self-serving testimony as to why the scanner might be in his boat and the trial court believed defendant was an accomplice under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-2-403.
|
|||||
| Belcher v. Dir., Empl. Sec. Dep't, E 04-387,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Arkansas Board of Review erred in denying unemployment compensation to an employee who had been discharged for absenteeism because on the day that the employee received her 18th occurrence point for being absent, there was no evidence that the employer did not believe that she was too ill to work; hence, there was no evidence of misconduct.
|
|||||
| Bush v. State, CA CR 04-775,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS THREE AND FOUR, April 6, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported defendants' convictions for theft of property, Ark. Code Ann. ¿¿ 5-36-101(8) (Supp. 2003) and -103(a)(1) (2003), because (1) they knowingly took table with the purpose of making it or using it as their own game table; and (2) they had no possessory or proprietary interest in table at the time it was taken from garage apartment.
|
|||||
| Edwards v. State, CACR04-407,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for robbery and his 40-year prison sentence were upheld because the issues presented in his appeal challenging searches by police were identical to the issues that he presented to the Arkansas Supreme Court in his appeal of a life sentence for a related conviction. The Arkansas Supreme Court's decision was binding.
|
|||||
| Estate of Denton v. Garrich, CA04-860,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly found that will was not ambiguous and that appellees were each entitled to one-fifth of deceased's estate because paragraphs at issue provided that if appellees survived deceased, they were each entitled to a one-fifth interest in her estate. There was no ambiguity in the will; thus, there was no need for extrinsic or parol evidence.
|
|||||
| Grupa v. State, CACR 04-797,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's two methamphetamine-related convictions were proper pursuant to the Fourth Amendment where the search warrant for his residence was supported by probable cause. Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his garbage can's contents, and thus, those contents listed in the affidavit were properly before the magistrate.
|
|||||
| Hatchett v. Smith, CA 04-1222,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court failed to make findings on material change of circumstances. But on de novo review, appellate court found there were factors that, when examined in aggregate, amounted to material change and which allowed for extended visitation for the father, including the advanced age of children as well as father's loving relationship with children.
|
|||||
| Hill v. State, CA CR 03-1433,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 6, 2005, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress and defendant's conviction was reversed as the officer provided no reasons for frisking defendant other than that it was "policy" and admitted he had not seen anything that led him to believe that defendant had a weapon and would warrant a search under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.4.
|
|||||
| Hot Springs Bail Bond v. State, CA04-1104,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 6, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in upholding bond forfeiture after person who was arrested for public intoxication did not appear in court because Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 16-84-201(b) (Supp. 2003) did not provide that failure of law enforcement agency to make every reasonable effort to apprehend person necessarily constituted good cause for person's failure to appear.
|
|||||
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. |
