 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Smart v. St. Vincent Health Servs., CA05-1252,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of workers' compensation benefits and attorney fees to employee was properly overturned where she was unable to establish causal link that was necessary to prove compensable injury under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(a). She was unable to establish that her joint problems were either compensable injury standing alone or result of aggravation.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Lindell Trimble Toyota, Inc., CA05-1067,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Car purchaser lacked standing to raise a claim that his purchase agreement failed to comply with Arkansas taxation law; under Ark. Code Ann. § 26-52-105, the State of Arkansas was the real party in interest concerning the tax claim. The court properly dismissed his claim for a buyer's rebate because he assigned the cash payment to the dealership.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Payne, CA05-1043,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision that the mother was equitably estopped from collecting child support payments from the father once their son ran away from the mother and the father took him in as the mother made no effort to get the son back and did not pay the father child support while he took care of the son.
|
|||||
| Washington v. Univ. of Ark., CA 05-1211,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' Compensation Commission's affirmation of the ALJ's denial of an employee's request for additional temporary-total disability benefits was reversed as the Commission failed to make a proper de novo review of the record, and there was no medical evidence showing that her car accident was an independent intervening cause of her injuries.
|
|||||
| Watkins v. State, CACR05-70,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of appellant's probation was upheld because although appellant denied that officer retrieved drugs from him, trial judge was free to determine credibility of witnesses; counsel's motion to withdraw was granted where his brief, filed pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j), explained why each adverse ruling was not meritorious.
|
|||||
| Webb v. Webb, CA05-1083,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the divorce decree ordered a division of property but failed to address spousal support, the appellate court could not determine whether the decree was a final judgment. The appellate court could not determine whether it had jurisdiction over the appeal under Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
|
|||||
| Wyatt v. Giles, CA05-1094,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court properly denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration in plaintiff's negligence action because although plaintiff agreed that any claims that she had against defendants would be governed by the Arkansas Uniform Arbitration Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-201(b)(2), the Act specifically excluded claims sounding in tort from its boundaries.
|
|||||
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. |
