Arkansas, April, 2004, State Case law

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 7, 2004

Bearden v. State, CACR02-1224, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: There was no evidence connecting defendant to manufacturing of methamphetamine, and fact that there was a recipe in property owner's truck at the time it was searched and the fact that defendant had been in truck earlier that day was not sufficient.

Search Cases for Free

Branham v. Ozment, CA03-925, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: A trial court properly granted summary judgment to a physician in a patient's medical-malpractice action; the two-year statute of limitations began to run when the negligent act occurred, and not when the patient suffered damages.

Search Cases for Free

Brown v. State, CACR 03-392, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant, where the testimony of one eyewitness alone was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's right to a speedy trial. All evidence was properly admitted.

Search Cases for Free

Browning v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA 03-887, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE AND TWO, April 7, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: A court properly terminated parents' parental rights where, although the children were not physically beaten, the parents physically endangered the children with a lack of medication, a lack of heat, and exposure to dangerous items.

Search Cases for Free

Dondanville v. State, CA CR 03-724, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 7, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to suppress his statements was not clearly erroneous, as he agreed to waive his rights and signed a written waiver. Appellate court did not have jurisdiction to address defendant's argument as to evidence of tanks.

Search Cases for Free

Franks v. State, CACR03-1013, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Because defendant was not convicted of battery in the second degree, his argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on this charge was not addressed by the appellate court.

Search Cases for Free

Generali-U.S. Branch v. Martinez, CA03-1213, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Insurer did not request specific findings of fact, thus, appellate court could only review general damages award as a whole. Award was supported by the evidence based on insured's testimony. Insurer waived objection to use of deposition testimony.

Search Cases for Free

Gibson v. First State Bank, CA 03-942, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Former husband and wife's property was foreclosed upon and sold to husband's cousin. Wife appealed from denial of motion to set aside sale. Record contained no disposition of cousin's cross-complaint. There was no final order. Appeal was dismissed.

Search Cases for Free

Gray v. Koons, CA03-964, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Trial court erred in awarding treble damages to property owner for loss of trees his neighbor cut on the owner's land, where there was no testimony as to when the trees were cut, and, if they had been cut in 1998, the owner did not own property then.

Search Cases for Free

Hill v. State, CACR03-620, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 7, 2004, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Trial court did not err in declining to allow defendant to change public defenders; fact that defendant was dissatisfied with counsel's efforts did not entitle him to appointment of different attorney. There was no prejudice from the denial.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal