 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Southland Metals, Inc. v. Dir., E04-230,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Arkansas Board of Review did not err in awarding unemployment compensation benefits to an employee who was discharged for excessive absenteeism because she had been discharged for reasons other than misconduct. There was no evidence that the employee was absent at any time when she was able to be at work; one of her absences was for surgery.
|
|||||
| Southway Corp. v. Metro. Realty & Dev. Co., LLC, CA 04-559,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND TWO, April 6, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly found that tenant's late rent payment was a material breach of the lease where there was no showing that the landlord failed to notify the tenants of where to send the rent, there was evidence that timely remittal of rent payments was important to the landlord, and the tenants' failure to pay the rent was not an isolated incident.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA04-648,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court properly determined that Arkansas was not the home state of a child under the UCCJEA in a termination of parental rights case because Illinois was the child's home state within six months before the commencement of the proceeding; also, the child's maternal grandparents, who sought guardianship of the child, resided in Illinois.
|
|||||
| Vanderburg v. Allstate Ins. Co., CA 04-731,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The paragraph-four exclusion clearly and unambiguously indicated that damage from any water on or below the surface which flowed into the premises was not covered by the policy. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting the insurer's motion for summary judgment on homeowners' suit against the insurer for the costs associated with a water leak.
|
|||||
| Whipple v. State, CACR04-446,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a three-year prison sentence for offense of sexual indecency with a child after defendant violated his probation by contacting child victim's mother and spending unsupervised time with children because the sentence was within the range provided for the offense by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(5) (1997).
|
|||||
| Witkowski v. Gennings, CA04-726,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite the fact that an executrix failed to provide information about an asbestos claim and an inventory and accounting were untimely, a trial court did not err by declining to remove the executrix as unsuitable under Ark. Code Ann. § 28-48-105 (1994); there was no intent to mislead, and the executrix substantially complied with her duties.
|
|||||
| Young v. Dickson, CA04-859,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a quiet title action involved the location of a single boundary between two parcels of land, one of which was undisputedly owned by appellants and one of which was undisputedly owned by appellee, publication of an Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-503(a) notice was not a prerequisite to the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction.
|
|||||
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. |
