 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Latham v. Ark. HHS, CA06-969,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS FOUR, ONE AND TWO, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The termination of a father's parental rights to his son was proper under Ark. Code Ann. ¿¿ 9-27-341(b)(3)(vii)(a), (b)(3)(B)(ix)(3)(B)(i), and (b)(3)(A) because the father failed to prove that he was able to provide for one of his son's most basic needs, which was a stable home environment.
|
|||||
| Laxton v. State , CACR06-1228,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant did not complete drug court, he was required to serve a six-year sentence for forgery and a ten-year suspended sentence for theft. Under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-4-404, he was entitled to 53 days credit for the time he spent in jail before he entered drug court. He was not entitled to credit for the time that his case was in drug court.
|
|||||
| McCarty v. Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Serv., CA06-1482,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the father kept items used to manufacture of methamphetamine in his home, was incarcerated, and failed to pay child support, the trial court found that his daughters' best interests were served by the termination of his parental rights under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-341(b)(3)(A). Only one ground was necessary to support the termination order.
|
|||||
| McKinney v. State, CACR06-979,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant allowed his large pit bull to escape the yard and bite a victim, the evidence supported the conclusion that defendant committed third-degree battery by negligently causing the victim's physical injury with a deadly weapon, Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-13-203(a)(3). Based on the violation, his suspended sentences were properly revoked.
|
|||||
| Miller v. State, CACR06-888,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: During defendant's trial for delivery of cocaine, defendant moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State's case; however, he failed to renew that motion until after the jury had been instructed. Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for review under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c).
|
|||||
| Murie v. State, CACR 06-1008,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because assessing the credibility of the witnesses was the trial court's job, there was substantial evidence to support a conviction for reckless burning under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-38-302 in a case where defendant admitted to a witness that a companion had saved his life when a building fire, which was started for warmth, got out of control.
|
|||||
| Riddle v. Udouj, CA 06-865,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND TWO, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A breach of warranty case against the sellers of real property was barred by the five-year statute of limitations because the cause of action accrued at the time of the sale, but not at the time of a court order quieting title in a portion of the property to several neighbors. The breach and constructive eviction occurred on the date of the deed.
|
|||||
| Rogo v. Johnson, CA 06-1399,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order of protection was properly entered against a former husband under the Arkansas Domestic Abuse Act of 1991, Ark. Code Ann. ¿¿ 9-15-101 to 9-15-303, where the evidence showed that his former wife suffered facial injuries after a dispute that arose during a visitation exchange. Credibility issues were for the trial court to resolve.
|
|||||
| Royal Oaks Vista, L.L.C. v. Maddox, CA06-738,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly held that a subdivision's replat and new bill of assurance were invalid where the developer took the risk of investing in infrastructure before filing its replat and obtaining the lot owners' consent and a temporary septic system across one lot violated the requirement that the lots be used only for residential purposes.
|
|||||
| Sharp v. Keeler, CA06-714,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mother's continued alienation of a father from his son by interfering with the father's visitation and not keeping the father updated on their son's medical conditions constituted a material change of circumstances that warranted giving the father custody. Supervised supervision for the mother was improper when the mother did not neglect her son.
|
|||||
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. |
