 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Penn v. State, CA CR 00-560,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contempt was the lesser included offense of the statutory crime of interference with court-ordered custody. Thus, prosecution for the statutory crime after court-ordered contempt was barred by double jeopardy clause.
|
|||||
| Schones v. France, CA 00-1163,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Daughter, on summary judgment, failed to present proof that her mother lacked mental capacity to deed real property to her siblings or that her siblings exercised undue influence on their mother to procure the deed.
|
|||||
| Sory v. Woodall, CA 00-1111,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court abused its discretion. Appellant had been named as a party, but had never been served and had no notice of a hearing. Her presence at the hearing could have had a decisive impact on the question of custody.
|
|||||
| Stanton v. State, CR 00-583,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 2, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Affidavit for search warrant sufficiently established informant's reliability; informant's statements were based on her personal observations of recent criminal activity, and she had given reliable information to police in the past.
|
|||||
| Sturgis v. Clifton, CA00-981,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appeal was dismissed, because the trial court's judgment was not a final, appealable order. The trial court's order granting summary judgment to appellees did not dispose of appellant's claims against the unnamed defendants.
|
|||||
| Superior Senior Care, Inc. v. Dir., Employment Security Dep't, E 99-317,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 2, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of unemployment benefits, and board of review's declining to direct that employment agency's proffer of additional evidence be considered, were upheld. The separate issue of whether agency was "employer" was not before board.
|
|||||
| Tackett v. Merchant's Sec. Patrol, CA 00-949,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Security company owed no duty to protect accident victim from a drunk driver, as no special relationship existed between the company and the victim, and the victim was not an intended beneficiary of a contract between bar and security company.
|
|||||
| Wigley v. State, CA CR 00-257,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS THREE AND FOUR, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As an overnight guest in the home of a parolee who had signed a "consent-in-advance" to searches of his home, defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his possessions located in a common area of the parolee's residence.
|
|||||
| Winston v. State, CACR 00-755,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence appellant communicated a threat to kill the victim if she did not stop repeating "Jesus" was sufficient to sustain his conviction of first-degree terroristic threatening. Proof appellant intended to cause prolonged terror was not required.
|
|||||
| Worthem v. State, CACR 00-1021,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in restricting appellant's cross-examination of child rape victim, where evidence sought to be admitted was of a prior bad act specifically to impeach her credibility, thus irrelevant.
|
|||||
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. |
