 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. Stewart, No. 05-886,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 27, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a class action suit against a check-cashing business and its corporate officers, the trial court did not err in piercing the corporate veil and holding the officers individually liable as they failed to properly maintain business records, thereby failing to comply with the Ark. Code Ann. § 23-52-112(a) of the Arkansas Check Casher's Act.
|
|||||
| Bunn v. State, No. CR 05-326,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 27, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an inmate failed to make a substantial showing that his petition for postconviction relief had merit or that most of the claims were even cognizable in such a proceeding, his request for duplication of the brief to provide the court with the 17 required copies under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(d) was denied.
|
|||||
| Gillard v. State, No. CR05-916,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 27, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction for rape as the court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict him as the victim gave detailed testimony regarding the sexual assaults and the jury was free to find the victim a more credible witness despite certain inaccuracies in her testimony.
|
|||||
| Holly v. State, No. CR 06-159,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 27, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate entered guilty pleas to first-degree murder and aggravated robbery. Postconviction, inmate sought to have gun fingerprint tested, and he requested counsel. Request was properly denied because timely petition was not filed under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, and Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 through 16-112-207 did not provide substitute remedy.
|
|||||
| In re Crim. Jury Instructions Comm., [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL],
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 27, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kelley v. State, No. CR 06-154,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 27, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant was properly denied scientific testing under Act 1780 of the 2001 Acts of Arkansas, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(c) (Supp. 2003), where it was clear from the record that identity was not an issue at his rape trial. At trial, appellant's defense was that no intercourse occurred as the victim had testified.
|
|||||
| Ligon v. Stewart, No. 06-260,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 27, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Marshall v. State, No. CR06-384,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 27, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court remanded an appellant's motion for rule on the clerk to have his appeal docketed because the circuit court judge did not comply with Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 5(b)(1)(C) in that he did not indicate that all parties had had the opportunity to be heard on the motion.
|
|||||
| Parmley v. State, No. CR 06-204,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, April 27, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court dismissed an appeal of an order dismissing appellant's Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition for postconviction relief where the petition was filed 142 days after the mandate was issued. Because the Rule 37.1 petition in the trial court was not timely filed, appellant's motion for an extension of time to file an appellate brief was moot.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
