 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Vaag v. Vaag, CA 01-724,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where husband received notice of final divorce hearing 10 days in advance and was out of the country and could not attend, motion for continuance filed 5 days later was filed in a timely manner, and trial court erred in ruling otherwise.
|
|||||
| Wal-Mart Stores v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., CA01-1139,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where corporation's suit against insurers was fact-intensive and witnesses resided in Oklahoma, relative convenience of parties favored a trial in Oklahoma, and dismissal for forum non-conveniens was proper.
|
|||||
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., CA 01-1140,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 24, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court gave due consideration to store's status as resident plaintiff, analyzed potential issues and witnesses, and weighed relative convenience to parties and witnesses in deciding Pennsylvania was more convenient forum for case.
|
|||||
| Walburn v. Law, CA 01-1053,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 24, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where one attesting witness and attorney who drafted decedent's will testified to execution of will by decedent, personal representative proved that will was properly executed in accordance with statutory scheme.
|
|||||
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. |
