 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Boyd v. Brookshire Grocery Co., CA04-900,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported Workers' Compensation Commission's decision reducing claimant's impairment rating, wage-loss disability rating, and period of time she was entitled to temporary disability benefits because videotape showed her performing tasks, including boating and camping, and other evidence showed she exaggerated her illiteracy.
|
|||||
| Buelow v. Madlock, CA 04-898,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 13, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed trial court's judgment in favor of an individual against his insurance agent and agency as the agent had no duty to advise or inform the individual as to insurance coverages except in those cases where there was a special relationship between the agent and the insured, and no such relationship existed here.
|
|||||
| Clark v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA 04-967,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS FOUR AND ONE, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in not appointing counsel for father at the dependency-neglect adjudication hearing because he was indigent and his children were effectively taken away from him although they remained in the home where the father was ordered to move from the home, therefore the father had a right to counsel under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-316(h).
|
|||||
| Covington v. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr., CA04-466,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly granted summary judgment to a hospital in the hospital's action to recover from a doctor under a promissory note because the doctor did not provide any proof in showing that there were material facts in dispute.
|
|||||
| Hancock v. State, CA CR 04-992,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 13, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dismissed defendant's appeal of denial of his motion to suppress statements made by him during telephone call with sexual abuse victim and her mother that was orchestrated by police because telephone conversation was not search and did not involve illegally seized evidence. His argument did not fall within purview of Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b).
|
|||||
| Hobbs v. Lotsip, Inc., CA03-404,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly construed an agreement between purchasers and a company according to the agreement's unambiguous terms; even had the parties entered in a subsequent agreement, any such agreement would have been unenforceable due to a lack of consideration.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, CACR04-945,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for second-degree forgery was proper pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-37-201(a) (1997) where the evidence showed that defendant knew that he was not authorized to draw on a church's account and yet he uttered a check with the purpose of withdrawing money on the account by representing that he had the authority to do so.
|
|||||
| Kubisty v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, CA04-541,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A bankrupt father who owed a child support arrearage was entitled to a hearing on the defenses permitted by Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-17-606 (2002) before a trial court confirmed a California child support decree because he complied with the requirements in order to contest registration of the California support order; the case was remanded for a hearing.
|
|||||
| Manor v. State, CACR 04-1129,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly admitted evidence of defendant's three prior convictions of possession with intent to deliver; the convictions were relevant to prove intent and thus admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b), and prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the evidence under Ark. R. Evid. 403.
|
|||||
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. |
