 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cent. Ark. Found. Homes, LLC v. Choate, No. CA08-1382,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 20, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Home builder's appeal of order awarding judgment to customer in action for recission of contract was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because trial court's order did not address builder's counterclaim for judgment in quantum meruit; it was not apparent that the counterclaim was disposed of, nor did order contain Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certificate.
|
|||||
| Dierks v. State, No. CACR08-297,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 20, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Dierks v. State, No. CACR 08-553,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 20, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for committing terroristic act, contrary to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-13-310, was upheld because State presented evidence that he was angry upon being asked to leave a restaurant, that he told a friend he was about to fill restaurant with buckshot, and that within minutes, front window shattered after being struck by shotgun blast.
|
|||||
| Dominguez v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., No. CA09-08,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 20, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating mother's parental rights to her child pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) was upheld because child had been removed at age of three months and was approximately 21 months old at time of hearing; despite efforts to rehabilitate mother and correct the conditions that caused removal, the conditions were not remedied.
|
|||||
| Dugan v. State, No. CACR 08-1000,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 20, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Holland v. State, No. CACR 08-985,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 20, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Holmes v. State, No. CACR 08-1274,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 20, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where officers found copper scouring pad, digital scales, and sandwich bags with the ends removed in defendant's kitchen, sufficient evidence showed that she possessed items of drug paraphernalia in violation of Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-64-403; the court did not err by revoking her suspended sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Jones, CA08-1281,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 20, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On husband's petition for contempt, trial court did not err in interpreting parties' divorce decree to mean that wife had obligation to satisfy joint medical expenses that were in both names because trial court clearly interpreted the decree to clarify what was originally intended, not to insert new provisions that were not contemplated by decree.
|
|||||
| Keller v. Keller, No. CA 08-995,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 20, 2009, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce action, trial court did not err in ordering husband to pay the wife $ 5,526, which represented half of his expenditures from a checking account for which the wife received no benefit, because the husband failed to put on proof to meet his burden of showing that the checking account was not subject to division as his nonmarital property.
|
|||||
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. |
