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!
   State Courts - Arkansas - April 23, 2009
  
Bates v. State, No. CR 08-362, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 23, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free
  
Gates v. State, No. CR 98-1197, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 23, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free
  
Hall v. State, No. CR 08-1400, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 23, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free
  
McArty v. State, No. CR 93-1071, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 23, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free  

Overview: An inmate's petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis was denied because the inmate's allegation that the coroner's report was suppressed was merely conclusory and the inmate failed to satisfy the three-prong Brady test with regard to such allegations.

Search Cases for Free
  
McDaniel v. State, No. CR 84-54, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 23, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free
  
Patterson v. State, No. CR 09-105, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 23, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free
  
Thompson v. State, No. CR 08-773, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 23, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free
  
Van Jenkins v. State, No. CR 02-46, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 23, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free
  
White v. State, No. CR 08-45, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 23, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free  

Overview: Appellant convicted of possession of drugs and firearms was not entitled to postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence, because appellant's proposed argument for suppression was without merit; and the imposition of consecutive sentences did not violate double jeopardy.

Search Cases for Free
  
Back to Top
  


Copyright© 2011 LexisNexis®, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.