 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Scott v. State, No. CR 04-922,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The supreme court granted defendant's petition following his conviction for aggravated robbery to proceed on appeal as a pauper, for the appointment of appellate counsel, and to ensure that the remainder of the record was lodged in the supreme court for the appeal.
|
|||||
| State v. Oldner, 04-995,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mayor was convicted of witness tampering and abuse of office, which were crimes involving dishonesty and deceit. Also, his convictions directly impacted his ability to serve as an elected official. Thus, mayor was convicted of infamous crimes under Ark. Const. art. 5, § 9, and trial court erred in denying State's petition to remove him from office.
|
|||||
| Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 04-420,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported Board's finding that physical therapist's treatments that caused patients' spines to "pop" were spinal manipulations under Ark. Code Ann. § 17-81-102(7) that could only be performed by licensed chiropractors, and that he was not practicing physical therapy, defined as passive manipulation of joints within normal range of motion.
|
|||||
| Turner v. State, No. CR 04-1161,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Young v. Dennis, No. 05-263,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a criminal case, petitioner's motion to continue with a mandamus petition because he was not informed of its dismissal and disagreed with the trial court's ruling was denied as the trial court had already acted on the petition for writ of habeas corpus (the subject of the mandamus action); thus, the petition for writ of mandamus was moot.
|
|||||
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. |
