 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Tirado v. O'Hara, CA 99-857,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 3, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion for new trial where the jury failed to take into account all of the elements of appellees' damages in the verdict.
|
|||||
| Ultracuts Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, CA 99-449,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS THREE AND FOUR, May 3, 2000, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court improperly granted summary judgment to department store chain where issues of material fact existed as to whether alleged oral agreement with hair salons had been breached.
|
|||||
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Williams, CA99-1209,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission correctly determined that claimant who had not suffered back problems prior to working at employer's store was entitled to back surgery despite lack of employer's pre-authorization.
|
|||||
| Walker v. Independent Case Mgmt., CA99-1189,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 3, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a workers' compensation benefits case, the evidence was not sufficient to support the Commission's conclusion that appellant was an active participant in the combat between herself and a fellow employee.
|
|||||
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. |
