 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brewer v. State, CACR99-1415,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, September 6, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State established adequate chain of custody for bag of marijuana, as there were no discrepancies in description of evidence and each witness testifying about it identified it by markings assigned by officer who originally seized it.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, CACR99-1393,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, September 6, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's objection to admission of statement to law enforcement not made at trial, and, therefore, not preserved for appeal; defendant failed to rebut statutory presumption of intent to deliver marijuana by possessing more than one ounce.
|
|||||
| Chavez v. State, CA 99-1373,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, September 6, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no basis for the circuit court to exercise jurisdiction over appellant juvenile. Thus, the juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction over him and the juvenile court could not transfer the case to the circuit court.
|
|||||
| Crisp v. State, CA 99-1493,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, September 6, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to transfer his criminal case to juvenile court was denied due to seriousness of crimes he was charged with and fact that, due to his age, juvenile rehabilitative services were virtually unavailable to him.
|
|||||
| Domicile Hunting Club v. Clowney, CA 99-149,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, September 6, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowner was not entitled to easement by prescription over hunting club's property because landowner did not demonstrate that his use of easement was adverse and use of roadway over unimproved land was deemed to be permissive and not adverse.
|
|||||
| Eugene Vaughn Ford Sales, Inc. v. Wilkins, CA 00-67,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, September 6, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer could not argue that decision awarding additional temporary total disability benefits to claimant was barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel because those arguments were not raised before administrative law judge or commission.
|
|||||
| Grant v. Bogard, CACR00-2,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, September 6, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not disturb trial court's finding that defendant possessed required culpable mental state to convict him of first degree battery where there was substantial evidence to support trial court's determination.
|
|||||
| Jablonski v. Jablonski, CA 99-1089,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, September 6, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Absent clear and convincing evidence to enable court to trace property purchased with a party's separate funds, order dividing property as joint was upheld. Award of attorney's fees to party in better financial position was improper.
|
|||||
| Pennington v. State, CACR 99-1295,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, September 6, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Minor uncertainties in proof of chain of custody did not render evidence inadmissible as matter of law and possession of .338 grams of methamphetamine, firearms, and large sums of money were substantial evidence of possession with intent to deliver.
|
|||||
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. |
