 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cloudy's Trucking, LLC v. Cleary, CA 05-1195,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was substantial evidence that workers' compensation claimant was permanently and totally disabled under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-519(e)(1) as (1) one doctor stated that claimant's condition would prohibit him from returning to substantial work of any kind; and (2) a vocational specialist documented that his returning to work would be difficult.
|
|||||
| Farler v. City of Cabot , CA05-1212,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation benefits were denied because an employee failed to prove the compensability of his claim under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(B)(iii) (Supp. 2003) since an exception to the "going and coming rule" did not apply simply based on the use of a company vehicle and the fact that the employee was on call the night before.
|
|||||
| Holland v. Helena Reg'l Med. Ctr., CA05-1095,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation commission properly held that employee failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that she had sustained compensable injury pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A) where her physician attributed her injury to years of deterioration and employee herself never claimed injury as compensable until months after her surgery.
|
|||||
| Luginbill v. Luginbill, CA05-971,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over parties' custody/visitation matters under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-19-201(a)(3) and 9-19-206(b) of UCCJEA, even though father lived in Oklahoma and mother moved to Tennessee where she sought to enroll Arkansas divorce decree, because Tennessee declined jurisdiction after finding Arkansas was proper forum.
|
|||||
| Mizell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-1085,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341, termination of mother's parental rights was affirmed because (1) children were neglected due to mother's drug addiction; (2) mother clearly failed to remedy the conditions that caused children's removal and had manifested the incapacity or indifference to do so; and (3) children had adjusted well to foster family.
|
|||||
| Nelson v. Harding, CA05-1143,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligence suit claiming substance sprayed on dirt driveway was slick and caused vehicle to lose control on road, court did not err in granting summary judgment to driveway owner, but erred in granting summary judgment to contractor; reasonable minds could have differed about causal connection between contractor's alleged negligence and damages.
|
|||||
| Porter v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-456,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3), termination of father's parental rights to his child was affirmed because trial court found that 1) father failed to finish court-ordered drug counseling; 2) there were irregularities with his drug screens; 3) he tested positive for cocaine; and 4) he had been unable to maintain a job for more than six months.
|
|||||
| Powell v. State, CACR05-724,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although it was true that no written statement of the conditions of her probation was admitted at trial, defendant had been served with a list of conditions in the petition to revoke, was present at the hearing, and, during her testimony, displayed familiarity with her probation obligations. Thus, trial court did not err in revoking her probation.
|
|||||
| Rhoden v. State, CACR05-1108,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of terroristic threatening under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-301 (1997) where a jury could infer that defendant made his threats to kill the victim and her mother with the conscious object to frighten the victim.
|
|||||
| Robertson v. Porter, CA 05-975,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ark. R. Civ. P. 59 purported to excuse driver from having to file motion for new trial to preserve issue for appeal. Jury reasonably could have found that driver's injuries were not caused by the negligence of appellees, truck operator and his employer; jury accepted appellees' theory that driver's injuries preexisted accident that involved them.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
