 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blueford v. State, CACR99-400,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions were reversed because there was no evidence that connected appellant to residential burglary and theft crimes. Although a witness saw him near deer camp, there was no evidence to connect him to attempted burglary.
|
|||||
| Boatmen's Trust Co. v. Housing Auth., CA99-834,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in a personal injury action was dismissed, because they had not met their burden of demonstrating the order they were appealing from was final for appellate purposes.
|
|||||
| Boudreaux v. GLI Holding Co., CA99-1163,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Temporary nature of relief afforded by chiropractic treatment, standing alone, was not a reasonable basis for denying claimant these treatments, in the absence of evidence that a more permanent alternative was available.
|
|||||
| Cahoon v. Deacon, CA 99-713,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No error existed where parties' actual intent was to form and operate a corporation, not a partnership, and former employee was therefore denied an accounting and partnership profits.
|
|||||
| Coleman v. Coleman, CA99-1154,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting absolute divorce to wife, dividing marital property and debt, and awarding custody and child support was reversed and remanded, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction absent wife's proof of corroboration of residency.
|
|||||
| Comm-Link, Inc. v. Joella, CA99-980,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Shareholders of separate corporations, who were involved in a transaction where one was acting in his capacity as an officer of the corporation in which the second had no interest, were not in fiduciary relationship.
|
|||||
| Eagle Bank & Trust Co. v. Dixon, CA 99-1187,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 3, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where disposition of collateral was settlement of lawsuit rather than an actual sale, sale of collateral was not conducted in a commercially reasonable manner.
|
|||||
| Farrelly v. State, CA CR 99-1167,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 3, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to support appellant's conviction for battery as the State proved that the appellant caused physical injury to the victim when she stabbed the victim in the shoulder, back, and arm.
|
|||||
| Hudlow v. First United Methodist Church of Hot Springs, CA 99-853,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a motion for a new trial was proper where substantial evidence existed to support jury verdict and weight and value to be given such evidence was a matter within the exclusive province of the jury.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. State, CACR 99-1340,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even thought the State should not have questioned a witness about appellant's post-arrest silence, judgment was affirmed because no manifest prejudice resulted and defense counsel failed to request the trial court to admonish the jury.
|
|||||
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. |
