 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Rice v. Welch Motor Co., CA05-1136,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was properly awarded to appellee in its quiet title action because its chain of title was superior. The evidence showed that appellants' predecessors had actual knowledge of the conveyance of land to appellee's predecessor; the deed of appellee's predecessor, although recorded later, took priority pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-15-404(b).
|
|||||
| Simmons v. State, CACR04-1279,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 402, 403, and 404, pornographic videos and photographs were relevant as they corroborated victims' testimony and were properly admitted. Under Ark. R. Evid. 804, deposition was allowed as declarant was unavailable to testify. Sentence was authorized under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-4-401 and -403 and was not cruel and unusual.
|
|||||
| Valetutti v. Valetutti, CA05-976,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's decrease in a husband's alimony payments was affirmed even though the husband indicated that the relief was not great enough because given that the trial court's findings indicated it looked at the wife's needs and the husband's ability to pay, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the obligation by only 30%.
|
|||||
| Watkins v. State, CACR05-1040,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting envelopes that contained the drugs from the controlled buys because the State established pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 901 that the evidence had not been altered.
|
|||||
| Weeks v. Wilson, CA 05-978,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An increase in alimony to the wife was affirmed because the wife proved a material change in circumstances as her diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis affected her ability to supplement her income as she had done in the past by being a massage therapist and limited her potential employment in other fields.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Nesbitt, CA05-864,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed the denial of mother's motion for an increase in child support because trial court erred in ignoring the withholding tables and simply accepting father's assertion he had more money withheld from his earnings to avoid having to pay additional money in taxes as the father obscured the amount of income available for support.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
