 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Keeling, CA 00-1075,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probate court did not err in ordering state agency to reveal name of person who gave adult neglect report where director never made finding that releasing information would be detrimental to interest or safety of reporter of neglect.
|
|||||
| Bartley v. State, CA CR 00-958,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court reversed a contempt conviction for a defendant who failed to comply with a notice to appear for arraignment with a lawyer. The notice was not an order and did not apprise defendant of the penalty for noncompliance.
|
|||||
| Bruning v. Bruning, CA00-712,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce proceeding, chancery court's valuation of corporation was not clearly erroneous and chancery court did not abuse its discretion in setting alimony amount or by requiring wife to attend college as condition of receiving alimony.
|
|||||
| Freeman v. Roberts, CA00-1161,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeals court reversed registration of a foreign default judgment since the defendant did not satisfy two prongs for the foreign state court to have personal jurisdiction over him. Defendant did not have minimum contacts with forum state.
|
|||||
| Garretson v. McMurry, CA 00-979,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neighbor presented sufficient evidence to support her title to the disputed property through boundary by acquiescence. Statements of prior owner were properly admitted under hearsay exception for statements against interest.
|
|||||
| Greer v. State, CACR 00-871,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant testified that he was coerced into consenting to a search of his home, and officers testified otherwise, the appellate court deferred to the trier of fact's finding that the officers were more trustworthy.
|
|||||
| Jacks v. W. Secured Invs. Co., CA 00-995,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Otherwise legal contract for the sale of property was not rendered void, merely because of vendors' suspicion that money vendee would use to pay for the property may have been derived, in whole or in part, from an illegal source.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Celotex Corp., CA00-1096,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's cervical-spine problems were caused by a degenerative condition; thus, Workers' Compensation Commission properly denied him compensation for that injury. Trial court properly awarded employee 60 percent permanent disability.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, CA CR 00-284,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 9, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rape conviction was reversed as orders for taking appellant's blood and saliva samples were not supported by a written affidavit or a sworn, recorded testimony and thus, failed to meet the sufficient probable cause requirements.
|
|||||
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. |
