 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Medlock v. Mitchell, CA05-891,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was properly awarded to a testator's daughter in her suit to probate a 1998 will where widow's comments to testator that his son broke into his office and wanted him taken off life support precipitated changes to testator's will in 2003; fact that testator was in hospital when 2003 will was prepared could indicate undue influence by widow.
|
|||||
| Milton v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-1272,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341, the trial court's finding that there was clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination of the mother's parental rights was not erroneous because, inter alia, the mother failed to maintain gainful and stable employment and was totally, financially dependent on her male friend who lived in her house.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-759,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3), trial court did not err in finding that father had failed to maintain meaningful contact with his child and in terminating father's parental rights to the child because he absented himself from child's life as soon as he found out that mother was pregnant, and he did not return until some 3 or 4 years later.
|
|||||
| Office Machs., Inc. v. Mitchell, CA05-323,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants, the former employees of plaintiff business, did not breach a fiduciary duty to plaintiff and commit the tort of tortious interference by hiring several of plaintiff's employees, none of whom were bound by non-competition agreements. Defendants were engaged in privileged competitive activity.
|
|||||
| Orr v. Calicott, CA05-594,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted physicians' motion to dismiss mother's medical negligence and wrongful death action on ground of improper venue where venue was appropriate only in Faulkner County pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-112(a); medial treatment was rendered in Faulkner County and infant was a resident of Faulkner County prior to his death.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. Miller, CA 05-1172,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was properly awarded to appellee in suit against appellant for damages incurred in moving appellant's mobile home from Texas to Arkansas where appellant was not prejudiced by the court holding trial on merits when he had only been notified of pretrial hearing. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not cognizable in civil cases.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-851,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in terminating mother's parental rights to her children where children had been in foster care from August 25, 2003 to March 16, 2005, date of termination hearing, but for period of May 25, 2004 to July 1, 2004, when one child was returned to mother's custody; termination was supported by Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a).
|
|||||
| Thornton v. Ark. Valley Elec. Coop. Corp., CA05-1234,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to electric company in plaintiff's personal injury suit, brought after he was injured when energized electrical line arced into his back, because it was clear that neither plaintiff nor his employer notified the company that work would be conducted near its power lines, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-5-307.
|
|||||
| Vanwagner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., CA05-1210,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The holding of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission that a worker's claim for additional permanent partial disability benefits was time barred was reversed, and the case was remanded since the claim was neither litigated nor dismissed. The toll was never lifted, and the claim for permanent partial disability benefits remained outstanding.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-947,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal from the termination of parental rights was remanded for further briefing where counsel for a father sought to withdraw from the case because the no-merit brief did not address adverse rulings dealing with the relevancy of an adoption specialist's testimony, which was a factor considered under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A)(I).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
