 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Estate of Slaughter v. City of Hampton , CA 06-1077,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission erred in denying widow's claim for benefits and payment of expenses where employee's treating physician was resolute in his opinion that inhalation of chlorine gas was major precipitating event, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-114, that led to the employee's respiratory failure, not the employee's HIV.
|
|||||
| Gill v. Sykes , CA06-643,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury case, a motion for a new trial under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(6) was properly denied because substantial evidence supported a jury's finding that the negligence of two drivers was not the proximate cause of injuries suffered in a car accident where an injured party had several pre-existing conditions.
|
|||||
| Hughes v. State, CACR06-930,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not abuse its discretion under Ark. R. Crim. P. 32.2 in denying defendant's request to ask venire person whether she had prior DWI conviction where any information that defendant might have gleaned from questioning venire person about her conviction would not have impugned prosecution's use of peremptory challenge to excuse her from jury.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, CACR 06-925,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed because defendant did not argue to the trial court that the rationale of an Arkansas Supreme Court opinion concerning consent to search a home should be extended to searches of vehicles.
|
|||||
| Laird v. Weigh Sys. South II, Inc. , CA06-890,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion for JNOV was denied in a case involving fraudulent transfers to a wife by a judgment debtor under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-59-204(a)(1) because the debtor and the wife were unable to substantiate a claim that wife purchased the stocks with money won at a horse race or that a transfer was due to the debtor's poor health.
|
|||||
| McVey v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA06-344,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to terminate mother's parental rights to her children where the children were found to be dependent-neglected, and the mother offered no evidence to support her argument that at the time of the termination she was capable of parenting her children. It was in the best interests of the children to terminate parental rights.
|
|||||
| Montgomery v. Montgomery, CA06-0971,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a wife was seeking alimony so that she could continue to support three adult children, a trial court abused its discretion in awarding such because this was a veiled attempt to obtain child support. Moreover, the father was not required to support adults, so he was not required to maintain their health insurance either.
|
|||||
| Page v. Page, CA06-753,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in divorce action in holding that antenuptial agreement was valid under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-406 where husband had not identified any specific property of wife's that was not disclosed, nor did he identify anything about her financial situation of which he was unaware at the time he executed the agreement.
|
|||||
| Scott v. State, CACR06-999,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's second-degree murder conviction, in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-103, was upheld where jury could have inferred intent under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202(2) from fact that he retrieved his gun, put round in chamber, aimed at victim, and shot him in chest; substantial evidence supported finding that he knowingly caused victim's death.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
