 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aguilar v. Galdamez, CA06-975,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the passengers were seriously injured when the driver lost control of the vehicle, they were awarded $1 million in compensatory damages but no punitive damages. They were not entitled to a new trial on punitive damages; the passengers' unspecific motion for JNOV under Ark. R. Civ. P. 50 did not preserve the issue for review.
|
|||||
| Bozeman v. Bozeman, CA06-593,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: From divorce proceedings, a husband's appeal and his ex-wife's cross-appeal were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the order from which the parties appealed did not put the trial court's directives into execution, but expressly contemplated further actions by the parties and the trial court before the litigation would be over.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, CACR 06-872,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a robbery case, even if the court erred by allowing evidence of a prior robbery, Ark. R. Evid. 404(b), the error was harmless because defendant admitted that he was the one who committed the crime, and his mother corroborated the confession by her presentation of the mask to the police and by her allowing them to search defendant's bedroom.
|
|||||
| Duvall v. State, CACR06-653,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 2, 2007
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was charged with drug offenses after the execution of a search warrant yielded physical evidence of contraband, he failed to establish standing to object to the search. Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, because he did not own or occupy the searched property.
|
|||||
| Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., Inc. v. Nowlin, CA06-01053,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On appeal of an insurance coverage case, appellant's abstract referred to documents relied upon in evidence at trial that were not included in appellant's abstract or addendum for review. Because appellant failed to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2(b)(3), a rebriefing was ordered.
|
|||||
| George v. State, CACR06-1101,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401(a) because buyer testified that methamphetamine she purchased from defendant came in a package with a particular emblem on it and agent testified that methamphetamine he obtained from buyer after the controlled buy came in a bag with that emblem on it.
|
|||||
| Harrison v. State, CACR06-908,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to suppress evidence was denied in a drug case because a search warrant complied with Ark. R. Crim. P. 13.1(b) since it was not merely based on a known criminal averment; moreover, an affidavit was not required to establish the reliability of a confidential informant where it was also based on an officer's personal observations.
|
|||||
| Horvath v. State Farm Fed. Sav. Bank, CA06-678,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, CACR 06-818,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Abstract and addendum in appellant's brief did not conform with the rules governing the contents of briefs, where appellant did not abstract the information as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2(a)(5). Appellant also failed to include in the abstract any proffered testimony related to the issues presented in her brief.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
