 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Avery v. State, CR 04-395,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The supreme court granted defendant's timely motion for a belated appeal under Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 2(e) where his appellate counsel candidly admitted that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal from the judgments entered against defendant prevented defendant from having his convictions reviewed by the supreme court.
|
|||||
| Bennett v. State, No. CR 03-690,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme court dismissed former inmate's petition for postconviction relief because the petition was not timely filed, it was not filed with the trial court clerk, and her appointed counsel's amended petition was filed more than 90 days after October 9, 2002, the date of the judgment and commitment order, in violation of Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c).
|
|||||
| Calaway v. Dickson, 04-1091,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The plain language of Ark. R. Civ. P. 11 contemplated that the motion for sanctions itself would be served and did not allow for service of any other document. Thus, appellant's warning letter was not sufficient to trigger the start of the 21-day period for filing the motion for sanctions; therefore, appellant's motion for sanctions was untimely.
|
|||||
| Dodson v. State, No. CR 02-1221,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not show bias by trial court against him and his allegations failed to support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel where he did not show counsel's behavior constituted error that would have resulted in a different outcome at trial. Defendant failed to provide a proper abstract under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2(b)(3).
|
|||||
| Doss v. State, No. CR 04-460,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to offer any showing of substantial merit to her appeal from her capital murder conviction and had not shown that her brief should have been duplicated at public expense under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, but she was granted a 30-day extension in which to file the brief.
|
|||||
| Ligon v. Newman, 03-1381,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a recommendation was made that the lawyer be disbarred for unethical practices, he bore the burden under Ark. Sup. Ct. Prof. Conduct P. § 13(D) of abstracting the record to show that the findings were clearly erroneous and of filing the opening brief.
|
|||||
| O'Neal v. State, No. CR 95-148,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's claim that his trial attorney was ineffective was outside purview of coram nobis proceeding. Also, remainder of his claims were assertions of trial error, and error coram nobis did not lie to address issues which could have been raised at trial. Thus, petition for writ of error coram nobis and motion for appointment of counsel were denied.
|
|||||
| Ouachita R.R., Inc. v. Circuit Court, 04-734,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a railroad filed an ejectment action against respondents, who occupied its right-of-way, the trial court erred in not dismissing respondents' counterclaim alleging abandonment and adverse possession of the right-of-way, as under 49 U.S.C.S. § 10501(b) such claims were exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board.
|
|||||
| Sanders v. State, No. 05-206,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing probable cause to believe that he was illegally detained or that he could have prevailed on an appeal from the denial of his writ of habeas corpus; therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
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. |
