 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| McDonald v. Batesville Poultry Equip., CA 04-872,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 13, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' Compensation Commission failed to correctly determine how Ark. Code Ann. ¿¿ 11-9-521 and 11-9-519 affected a scheduled-injury claimant's entitlement to permanent and total disability benefits, and the Commission improperly relied on incomplete reports in finding that the claimant had not proved he was permanently and totally disabled.
|
|||||
| Pasley v. O'Brien, CA04-998,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an unlawful detainer action, the appellants failed to preserve review of their challenge to the award of damages. The trial court acted within its discretion in refusing to admit photographs which showed no damage to the lease property.
|
|||||
| Rush v. Bishop, CA04-392,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driver's negligence suit against an employee who rear-ended his truck while making a delivery for her employer, denial of the driver's motion for new trial under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59 was proper as the jury could have found that the accident was not the proximate cause of the driver's injuries, and the driver failed to meet his burden of proof.
|
|||||
| Scott v. State, CACR04-1037,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not prejudiced by the trial judge's consideration of defendant's drug nickname when he ordered him to complete a substance-abuse program. The judgment and commitment order did not reflect that aspect of his sentencing.
|
|||||
| Second Injury Fund v. Sedgwick James of Ark., CA 04-1008,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 13, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consistent with Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2, a party was required to include a copy of a notice of appeal in the addendum.
|
|||||
| Simmons v. Davis, CA04-931,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action related to an automobile accident, the trial court properly denied a motorist's motion for a new trial on the grounds of juror misconduct pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 16-31-107 (1987) because it was not shown that the jurors knew that the father's attorney was involved in a class action lawsuit related to a truck explosion.
|
|||||
| Vallien v. State, CA CR 04-985,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Vanhoozer v. Kroger, CA04-980,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding against the employee in her workers' compensation action was proper pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 11-9-102(4)(A)(i) (Supp. 2003) where there was substantial evidence to support the finding that she did not initially report an injury to her employer despite numerous opportunities to do so.
|
|||||
| Young v. State, NO. CR01-269,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 13, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for attempted murder of his wife was affirmed because trial court properly excluded evidence of defendant's social security mental disability determination as irrelevant and likely to confuse the jury, and allowed evidence on the reason for the disability, depression. Also evidence of prior attack was admitted to show intent.
|
|||||
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. |
