 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Phillips v. Heirs of Metcalfe, CA04-737,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the evidence showed that a purchaser did not maintain an area in question until 1999, he failed to establish the elements of adverse possession under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 18-11-106(a) (2003). An order to remove encroaching mobile homes was not erroneous because several heirs amended their pleading by an oral motion to include an ejectment action.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Smith, CA04-1039,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in granting joint custody with primary custody to the mother, despite the animosity between the parties and the allegations of unfitness and abuse, where evidence showed that mother had been primary caregiver, child was well adjusted, father supported the child since the separation, and that both parties loved the child.
|
|||||
| Waddle v. State, CACR04-179,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's appeal of her drug conviction, trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an out-of-court statement made by deceased husband to his probation officer because statement concerned his family and their living arrangement; therefore, statement fell within an exception to the hearsay rule under Ark. R. Evid. 804(b)(4).
|
|||||
| Warren v. Snowden, CA 04-1147,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 4, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err by finding that an easement by necessity existed under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 27-66-401 for a private road where the evidence showed that it would have been very difficult for neighbors to construct their own road over an alternative route; a showing of absolute necessity was not required.
|
|||||
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. |
