Arkansas, April, 2005, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Arkansas - April 27, 2005

Jessup v. Jessup, CA 04-699, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS TWO AND THREE, April 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: In a husband's request for a rehearing of an issue arising out of the valuation of a vehicle, appellate court denied request because husband attempted to recast argument that trial judge had judicially noticed value; argument became that that trial judge gave testimony; however, appellate court refused to hear argument not raised in original brief.

Search Cases for Free

Lovette v. Ward-Lovette, CA 04-1251, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: At the time of the divorce, appellant husband was serving a seventeen-year sentence for raping his adopted son; the trial court did not err in using his previous income to determine his child support obligation. The trial court's decision to deny him visitation with his daughter while he was incarcerated was not clearly erroneous.

Search Cases for Free

Manuel Bail Bond Co. v. State, No. CA04-557, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 27, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Bond judgment forfeiture entered against bail bond company after criminal defendant failed to appear was upheld because under Ark. Code Ann. ? 16-84-201 (Supp. 2001), statute in effect at time when the show cause order was served on the company, forfeiture could be entered upon a criminal defendant's failure to appear without notice to the surety.

Search Cases for Free

Morris v. Morris, CA03-771, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: As trial court's award of dependency tax exemption to father, the non-custodial parent, resulted in deviation from family support chart, it erred in making that award without providing the findings required by Ark. Code Ann. ? 9-12-312(a)(2) and without weighing the benefits to the parties as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 10, ? III(f).

Search Cases for Free

Phillips v. Alpharma, Inc., CA04-492, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where the decedent's estate's complaint was not based upon allegations of an intentional or deliberate act by the employer with a desire to bring about the decedent's death, the exclusive remedy provision of the workers' compensation law applied, and the estate failed to state facts entitling it to relief under Ark. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Search Cases for Free

Ray Townsend Farms, Inc. v. Smith, CA 04-800, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 27, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Judgment in favor of a shareholder for damages and to liquidate the assets of a corporation was affirmed because the other shareholder's actions taken at a meeting convened without notice to the shareholder were illegal under Ark. Code Ann. ? 4-26-705(2001). Liquidation order and compensatory and punitive damages were proper.

Search Cases for Free

Roach v. Dolgencorp, Inc., CA04-1019, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Substantial evidence supported decision of Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission that employee's workplace neck injury was not major cause of impairment under Ark. Code Ann. ? 11-9-102(5)(F)(ii) (Supp. 2003). Two physicians found her condition was within normal limits. Third physician who found impairment did not have access to their opinions.

Search Cases for Free

Roddy v. State, CACR04-1047, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Court did not err in admitting lab results on controlled substances during defendant's trial because even if a discovery violation occurred, defendant should not have been surprised that State would seek to introduce lab reports confirming that the substances he possessed were cocaine and marijuana considering that he was arrested on those charges.

Search Cases for Free

Ross v. State, CACR04-977, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant's conviction for delivery of a controlled substance was appropriate because his speedy trial rights were not violated pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.1(b), 28.3(e), and 30.1. Once the warrant was assigned to another officer the police did make a reasonable effort to timely determine defendant's whereabouts and effectuate his arrest.

Search Cases for Free

Seymour v. Estate of Davis, CA 04-660, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to quiet title in the decedent's estate as the document presented by the daughter failed to adequately describe the subject property to effectuate a transfer to her under the statute of frauds.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal