 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Biedenharn v. Thicksten, 04-526,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 14, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in granting the representative's motion to dismiss under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) where the taxpayer argued that the representative violated Ark. Const. art. 16, § 3 and Ark. Code Ann. § 21-8-304; the allegations in the complaint raised the questions of fraud and bad faith which were pivotal on illegal-exaction claims.
|
|||||
| Craven v. Fulton Sanitation Serv., 04-791,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 14, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-410(a)(1)(A) and Ark. Const. 2, § 7, employee injured by the negligence of third party was entitled to have a jury determine the issue of causation, as well as other factual issues; therefore, the trial court erred in giving preclusive effect to the Workers' Compensation Commission's determination on issue of causation.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, No. CR 03-953,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 14, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding that counsel had advised inmate that lesser-included offense instructions be given to jury. Also, even if counsel had not advised that instructions be given, the trial strategy was reasonable and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus, his petition for postconviction relief was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Engram v. State, No. CR 03-1235,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 14, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to modify a sentence, because the sentence did not contain illegal inconsistencies, rather, it contained clerical error that were properly corrected by the trial court.
|
|||||
| Hall v. State, CR 04-1007,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 14, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to prove defendant committed an aggravated robbery as the underlying felony on a capital murder charge under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(1) (Repl. 1997), because the corpus delicti of the homicide was established by independent evidence, therefore the felony could be shown by defendant's confession alone.
|
|||||
| King v. State, No. CR04-1023,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 14, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In appeal of theft conviction, trial court did not err in denying motion for mistrial after officer testified as to "Offender ID" because motion was untimely; it was procedurally barred. Jurisdiction was proper because circumstantial evidence was introduced to show element occurred in Arkansas, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-111 (Repl. 1997).
|
|||||
| Mason v. State, CR 03-1100,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 14, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a consequence of defendant's acquittal in first trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm, res judicata and Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-113(2) (1997) precluded State at the second trial from presenting evidence that defendant possessed a firearm at the time the first-degree battery crimes occurred; thus, his battery convictions were reversed.
|
|||||
| McDonald v. State, No. CR 04-719,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 14, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| McGhee v. State, No. CR 03-1281,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 14, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's notice of appeal from a trial court's failure to find ineffective assistance of counsel was not timely filed, the merits of his arguments on appeal were not addressed. Further, because his postconviction relief motion was one for a new trial, Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.3 did apply to determine the timing of the denial of the motion.
|
|||||
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. |
