 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Birt v. State, No. CACR 99-769,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 19, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellant's motions at trial for directed verdict were not specific on the record, the court refused to address the merits of appellant's argument on appeal.
|
|||||
| Craig v. State, CA CR 98-187,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 19, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: First degree murder conviction reversed and remanded where appellant tried on alternative purposeful murder and felony murder theories, and proof showed appellant beat victim in furtherance of homicide, not separate felony.
|
|||||
| Dickerson v. Arkansas Child Support Enforcement Unit, No. CA 99-792,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 19, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellants were entitled to three days' notice of application for a default judgment because they had appeared in the action, a question existed as to the effect of appellants' motions to set aside paternity agreements.
|
|||||
| Dixie Gin v. Sanders, No. CA99-1111,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 19, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellee failed to prove that he was incapacitated to earn wages where a videotape of appellee performing many activities with his injured hand showed that appellee was asymptomatic.
|
|||||
| Epperson v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. CA 99-537,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 19, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tortfeasor's interpleading of funds from a judgment award was tantamount to satisfying the judgment, and was proper where the judgment had not been satisfied within 30 days and there was a threat of multiple liability.
|
|||||
| Friddle v. Arkansas Empl. Sec. Dep't, No. E 99-88,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 19, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of unemployment benefits affirmed where appellant failed to communicate when she intended to return to work; thus, substantial evidence supported finding that conduct constituted disregard of employer's interest.
|
|||||
| Garnett v. Crow, CA 99-920,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 19, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given evidence of plaintiffs' damages arising from automobile accident and relatively small amount awarded by jury, trial court did not commit manifest abuse of discretion in granting plaintiffs a new trial.
|
|||||
| Goforth v. State, No. CACR 99-1019,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 19, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where prisoner did not preserve issue of suppression of evidence for appeal, it was not considered; his motion for continuance was denied where he waited until morning of trial and over two weeks to seek it.
|
|||||
| Green v. State, No. CACR 99-1109,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 19, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecution's failure to assent to appellant's waiver of jury trial did not constitute prejudicial error or violate state constitution where appellant waived his right to a jury trial by executing a waiver of rights form.
|
|||||
| Holt v. Holt, CA 99-656,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 19, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Modification to divorce decree to exclude post-divorce salary increases in calculating party's share of retirement benefits was improper because court lacked jurisdiction in absence of changed circumstances or ambiguity.
|
|||||
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. |
