 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Swink v. Riceland Foods, CA06-1185,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding that the employee was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits was proper because he failed to prove that a surgery was reasonably necessary in connection with his compensable injury. Thus, he was not entitled to temporary-total disability benefits for the period of time that he was unable to work due to the surgery.
|
|||||
| Trotter v. State, CACR06-863,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was arrested by Monticello, Arkansas, officers outside county limits; cocaine, drug money, and drug paraphernalia were retrieved by the officers. Defendant was not entitled to suppress the evidence; the officers carried commission cards which appointed them to act as deputies in Drew County, Arkansas, under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-15-503.
|
|||||
| Wright v. State, CACR 06-1100,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence of concurrent terms of 18 years in prison on two counts of delivery of crystal methamphetamine, contrary to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401(a), plus additional terms of two years for each count to run consecutively to each other and base, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-411, was upheld because she failed to preserve her challenge.
|
|||||
| Youree v. Eshaghoff, CA06-883,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In suit for specific performance, evidence did not support finding there was consideration for second and third addenda to real estate sales contract as, although sellers gave concessions to purchaser in those addenda, purchaser promised to do no more than he was already obligated to do and court should have directed a verdict in favor of sellers.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
