 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Pennino v. Walthall, CA05-328,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in refusing to impose Ark. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) sanctions against brother where administratrix had received all pertinent information and her case did not suffer from lack of discovery. Under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-59-204, administratrix did not show that transfers between decedent and his brother and corporation were fraudulent.
|
|||||
| Travis v. State, CACR 05-999,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An unauthorized driver of a rental car, which had been rented by a third person, did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment because there was no expectation of privacy in the vehicle he was driving, despite the fact that the rental agreement had not yet expired.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-583,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court denied a counsel's motion to withdraw from an appeal following the termination of parents' parental rights because the counsel did not address whether a sustained objection to relevancy of testimony offered by the parents at the hearing was proper as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j)(1).
|
|||||
| Wynn v. State, CACR05-931,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress items seized following her detainment for arrival of drug-detection dog where observations that officer made prior to the end of traffic stop supported reasonable suspicion, as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1, that she was under influence of methamphetamine and thereby driving while intoxicated.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
