 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lee v. State, No. CACR06-922,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for domestic battery in the third degree, aggravated assault, and being a felon in possession of a firearm were appropriate, in part because his outburst and removal from the courtroom did not warrant a mistrial since the jury was admonished and since defendant himself was responsible for the removal.
|
|||||
| McKeown v. State, No. CACR 06-987,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a burglary case, denial of defendant's motion for directed verdict under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1 was not preserved for review because the motion was a general challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, with no specific argument as to flaws in the State's case or elements of the crimes that had not been proven.
|
|||||
| Meriweather v. Ark. HHS, CA 06-955,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND FOUR, April 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother's parental rights were terminated where, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿¿9-27-341(a)(3), legislature's overriding intent to was to protect best interest of the child; while mother attempted to be a parent, she was not able to be, and improvement and compliance toward end of a case plan would not necessarily bar termination of parental rights.
|
|||||
| Mkt. Place P'ship v. Hollywood Hangar, LLC, CA06-749,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A reversal and remand for a new trial in favor of the landlord in a landlord-tenant dispute was appropriate because in was erroneous to conclude that the lease was ambiguous. The inclusion of the term "liquidated final damages" was not intended to preclude the landlord from recovering additional damages under the lease.
|
|||||
| Moore v. State, CACR06-1015,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting detective to testify about defendant's post-arrest threat as threat was relevant, under Ark. R. Evid. 401, because it involved a threat substantially similar to the one made to his estranged wife immediately before her home was fired upon, and probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.
|
|||||
| Poe v. State, CACR 06-873,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for second-degree sexual assault were proper under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 16-42-101(c)(1) because he failed to file a written motion offering evidence of one of the victim's prior sexual contact. Thus, the trial court committed no error in refusing to permit the desired cross-examination of that victim's aunt and mother.
|
|||||
| Quick Lay Pipe Co. v. Morgan, CA06-1057,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a physician testified that a benefits claimant remained in his healing period, this constituted substantial evidence to support an award of additional TTD benefits; moreover, additional medical treatment was properly ordered as well under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-9-508(a) since the physician testified that it was related to the injury.
|
|||||
| Rolfe v. Blankenship, CA06-184,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly found that bank had proven its entitlement to a prescriptive easement. Because bank's predecessor's last use of the easement was no earlier than the spring or early summer of 1997, predecessor did not abandon the easement seven years prior to the filing in March 2004 of a complaint to establish the prescriptive easement.
|
|||||
| Van Meter v. State, No. CACR06-773,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order revoking defendant's suspended sentence was upheld where there was sufficient evidence that defendant committed aggravated assault, in violation of Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-13-204(a)(2); victim testified that he and friend were looking for artifacts on defendant's father-in-law's property when they heard gunshots followed by defendant chasing them.
|
|||||
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. |
