 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Davis v. State, CACR 00-706,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Possession with intent to deliver conviction proper where substantial evidence consisting of testimony in record supported conviction, and photographs, admitted into evidence, were relevant and corroborative of witnesses' testimony.
|
|||||
| Earnest v. State, CACR00-739,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant was properly to be tried as adult where charges were part of pattern of offenses that became increasingly serious over time, past rehabilitation efforts had failed, and appellant was beyond rehabilitation under juvenile programs.
|
|||||
| Ford v. Ford, CA 00-1196,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by failing to find a material change in circumstances where it found that mother was children's primary custodian, children had been living primarily with mother for two years, and mother had remarried.
|
|||||
| In re the estate of Seay v. Quinn, CA00-1143,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Heirs' appeal from denial of petition for distribution was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the order denying the petition did not determine the rights of the parties or conclude the litigation, and so was not a final or appealable order.
|
|||||
| J-Mar Express, Inc. v. Hutson, CA00-1172,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Truck driver's testimony that he suffered from back pain due to defective driver's seat while driving truck for employer across several states and that he had suffered pain before trip supported decision that he sustained compensable injury.
|
|||||
| Laime v. State, CA CR 00-382,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS FOUR AND ONE, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After officer who stopped appellants' van determined the license plate on van was valid, there was no reason to further detain van or appellants. Therefore, the subsequent search of the van was an unconstitutional. Drugs found were inadmissible.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. State, CA CR 00-844,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's son testified that she told him to turn pit bulls loose on officers, trial court's error by allowing officers to testify about prior incident involving the shooting of a pit bull at same residence was harmless.
|
|||||
| McConnell v. State, CACR00-1066,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellant failed to move for a dismissal at the close of the evidence, she failed to preserve for appellate review her contention that the evidence was insufficient to support her forgery conviction.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., CA 00-978,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deduction of appellant's disability income from award violated collateral-source rule as rule provided benefits received by plaintiff from source wholly independent of and collateral to defendant did not reduce damages recoverable from defendant.
|
|||||
| Patrick v. State, CACR00-1065,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not notify State that he wished to cross-examine state crime lab chemist who tested methamphetamine at probation revocation hearing, he waived his right to do so, and revocation was affirmed.
|
|||||
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. |
