 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Allen, CA 02-591,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, April 30, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err when it ordered incarcerated father to pay $ 25 per week in child support, while that exact issue was never determined in Arkansas, inter alia, administrative order provided income could be imputed to unemployed payor.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, CA CR 02-846,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 30, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court was without authority when it added five-year suspended sentences to terms of imprisonment decided by jury in finding defendant guilty of, inter alia, manufacturing methamphetamine, even though additional sentence was suspended.
|
|||||
| Burkett v. Burkett, CA02-587,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 30, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband in divorce action did not bear burden of showing civil service retirement was exempt from equal division because it included military service occurring before the marriage. Failure to object waived objections to other portions of decree.
|
|||||
| Clark v. State, CACR02-975,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, April 30, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where attorney failed to file a brief after being given an additional 30 days for filing, court of appeals found attorney in willful contempt for failure to file the brief, and contempt order was forwarded to the committee on professional conduct.
|
|||||
| Cole v. Cole, CA 02-232,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 30, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In valuing and dividing the marital estate in a divorce, the trial court improperly valued husband's interest in a surgery center by basing it on his buy-sell agreement with another shareholder instead of determining the fair market value.
|
|||||
| Dunn v. Univ. of Ark., CA02-1124,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, April 30, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported a workers' compensation decision denying benefits to an usher injured while returning to his car after a football game. Conclusion that the usher was not performing employment services was reasonable.
|
|||||
| Ehlebracht v. Dailey, CA02-827,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 30, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the mayor where the taxpayer failed to bring up to the appellate court a complete record. Counsel for the taxpayer made no effort to correct the incomplete record.
|
|||||
| Folkes v. State, CACR02-47,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, April 30, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed defendant's conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine due to insufficient evidence. Any links between defendant and the contraband were purely speculative.
|
|||||
| Fowler v. Springer, CA02-593,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, April 30, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deposition of out-of state expert was properly excluded in medical injury case, where expert was not familiar with local standard of obstetrical care and his opinion that patient's hysterectomy was result of negligence was not supported by facts.
|
|||||
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. |
