 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Miller v. Meyers Bakeries, CA 01-811,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 10, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where workers' compensation claimant's doctor could not state within a reasonable degree of medical certainty what event caused claimant's herniated discs, workers' compensation commission did not err by refusing to award disability benefits.
|
|||||
| Reed v. Smith Steel, Inc., CA 01-987,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 10, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court correctly found employee acted as contractor's agent; company established evidence proving that employee was agent, and that employee was promoting contractor's, not company's, interests in failing to charge contractor for materials.
|
|||||
| Rouse v. State, CACR01-336,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 10, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion for directed verdict, leading to conviction for sexual assault, was upheld. Because motion was not renewed at close of all the evidence (after rebuttal testimony presented by State), question of sufficiency was not preserved.
|
|||||
| Stone v. Pico, CA 01-799,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 10, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in granting fraud claim for agents, as evidence showed skimming of money occurred despite accounting system. Punitive damages award was proper, as appellants engaged in deliberate conduct to steal money from agents.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. State, CA01-1163,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 10, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was prevented from addressing sufficiency of evidence argument on appeal, but State provided substantial evidence defendant committed third-degree battery. Hospital billing statement was relevant evidence to establish victim's injury.
|
|||||
| Thornton v. State, CACR01-1152,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 10, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's failure to raise his motion to dismiss the State's revocation of suspended sentence petition for lack of a speedy hearing before the hearing resulted in the waiver of his right to object on appeal.
|
|||||
| Walker v. State, CA CR 01-941,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS TWO, THREE AND FOUR, April 10, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was in another person's car when drugs were found on the other person, these links to defendant did not constitute substantial evidence to support a finding of constructive possession by the defendant.
|
|||||
| White v. Priest, 02-284,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 10, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where individual sought declaratory judgment that the ballot title and name of his initiative to cap salaries of state officers was sufficient, the supreme court did not have original jurisdiction to consider his claim based on illegal exactions.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Walker, CA 01-1092,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 10, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where victim's testimony as to medical bills met requirements of statute in showing she received bills and they were incurred in connection with treatment, trial court did not err in allowing victim testimony or admitting bills into evidence.
|
|||||
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. |
