 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barton v. State, No. CR05-1336,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 11, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant juvenile was charged with capital murder and residential burglary, the Supreme Court of Arkansas could not consider his constitutional challenge to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(l), the juvenile-transfer statute. There was no final ruling regarding the issue, as required by Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 2.
|
|||||
| Buffington v. State, No. CR 06-426,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 11, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court denied an inmate's motion seeking leave to lodge a record belatedly which it treated as a motion for rule on clerk as the inmate was not entitled to counsel for his postconviction relief petition, and unfamiliarity with appellate legal procedure did not excuse the late tender of the record.
|
|||||
| Conlee v. Conlee, No. 05-991,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 11, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The granting of an extension of time for filing the record filed by the husband was improper pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 5 where the 90-day period expired before the circuit court held the hearing on the husband's motion and before the record was filed with the supreme court.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, No. CR 05-736,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 11, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of an inmate's petition to vacate set aside the conviction for capital murder and demand for scientific testing under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(c)(1)(B), because the inmate failed to show that the testing would produce evidence materially relevant to his assertion of actual innocence.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, No. CR 05-835,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 11, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of an inmate's petition to vacate and set aside his conviction and the request to scientifically test items of evidence under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(a)(1) because the testing would not have provided materially relevant evidence that would significantly advance defendant's claim of innocence.
|
|||||
| Finley v. State, No. CR 05-884,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 11, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of an inmate's petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 because the inmate did not provide a summary of the second witness's testimony in his petition and did not show that the introduction of further evidence could have impeached the victim or otherwise altered the outcome.
|
|||||
| Franklin v. State, CR05-1008,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 11, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Pfiester, No. 06-461,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 11, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jordan v. Circuit Court, No. 05-1031,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 11, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court granted a physician's petition for a writ of certiorari in an administratrix's third medical negligence and wrongful death action where the dismissal of the administratrix's second complaint resulted in an adjudication on the merits pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 41(b); further, the second and third complaints were almost identical.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
