 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ark. State Game & Fish Comm'n v. Sledge, 00-1425,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court order staying enforcement of a game and fish regulation about commercial duck hunters dismissed. Order was in nature of injunction as it prohibited an enforcement of the regulation, and could only be issued by chancery court.
|
|||||
| Beulah v. State, CR 00-1441,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In deciding not to transfer capital murder case to juvenile court, trial court was not required to address all of the statutory factors it was required to consider in writing, and did not err by listing only those factors supporting its decision.
|
|||||
| Boone v. State, CR 98-284,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The state's failure to disclose to defendant a lab report of gunshot residue tests was not grounds to grant writ of error coram nobis, as the tests were not exculpatory, and defendant did not show that the state deliberately withheld the report.
|
|||||
| Custom Microsystems, Inc. v. Blake, 01-24,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Preliminary injunction was not granted to enjoin a former employee of a company from working for another company pursuant to a non-compete covenant as the company the employee began working for was not a client of the former employer.
|
|||||
| Echols v. State, CR 99-1060,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's failure to make specific written findings of fact regarding each factual issue and specific written conclusions of law regarding each legal issue raised by appellant's postconviction petition required remand for complete findings.
|
|||||
| Elam v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 00-900,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 26, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As employee's claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits was a direct action against employer's UIM insurer, a third-party, his workers' compensation claim was not his exclusive remedy barring any additional claims for insurance coverage.
|
|||||
| Fayetteville Diagnostic Clinic v. Turner, 00-1285,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence was present from which jury could infer owner of medical clinic was aware of condition causing injured party's fall and that owner failed to take any corrective action; jury's damage award did not shock court's conscience.
|
|||||
| Folk v. State, CACR 99-1319,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner failed to state any information which pointed to specific instances where counsel failed to adequately represent him, court properly denied his request to have counsel removed from appeal.
|
|||||
| Harris v. State, CR 00-715,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
