 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. Hickok, No. 06-889,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal from a decision in a workers' compensation case was dismissed as untimely where an attorney from Texas filed notices of appeal on behalf of an insurer since he failed to comply with Ark. R. Admis. Bar XIV until later. As such, the pleadings were rendered a nullity.
|
|||||
| Donaldson v. State, No. CR 06-607,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court imposed an illegal sentence when it rejected a jury's verdict and took it upon itself to sentence defendant where the jury's sentencing verdict of zero years in prison and a fine of zero dollars was a proper and valid sentence for second-degree battery under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(5) (1997).
|
|||||
| Eastin v. State, No. CR06-1474,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err by denying a motion to reveal an informant's identity, Ark. R. Crim. P. 17.5, because an officer's testimony revealed that the informant never witnessed defendant possessing or manufacturing drugs; the testimony revealed that the informant witnessed methamphetamine on the houseboat but not while defendant was actually there.
|
|||||
| Flowers v. State, No. CR 06-1065,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly denied defendant's motion for postconviction relief where trial counsel was not ineffective for not seeking severance of a felon-in-possession charge. Counsel explained that he generally would have filed for a severance, but because the defense was complete denial, he did not want to risk conviction on second charge after acquittal.
|
|||||
| Haynes v. State, No. CR07-407,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2007, Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There were only two possible reasons for an appeal not being timely perfected: (1) party or attorney filing the appeal was at fault; or (2) there was a "good reason." Appellant's attorney stated in motion for rule on clerk that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part. Because attorney candidly admitted fault, motion was granted.
|
|||||
| Horvath v. Pope County Circuit Court, No. CR 07-265,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A pro se petition for a writ of certiorari filed by petitioner, which sought release from detention and elimination or reduction of the bond imposed as a condition of his release, was dismissed where a notice of appeal, as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 36, had been timely filed by petitioner's attorney.
|
|||||
| Hulsey v. State, No. CR 06-1311,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's request for the appointment of counsel to represent him in his appeal of the denial of postconviction relief was denied where defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that he was entitled to the appointment of counsel; he offered nothing to demonstrate that there was substantial merit to the appeal.
|
|||||
| State v. Blandin, No. CR06-1117,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred, at rape-shield hearing under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-42-101(c), in granting defendant's request to introduce evidence of child victim's claims of sexual abuse against other men in order to show that she obtained her sexual knowledge from source other than defendant where victim's descriptions of prior abuse and charged act were dissimilar.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. State, No. CR 07-264,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(10) provided for a rebuttable presumption against timeliness for any motion not made within 36 months of the date of conviction. Inmate filed his motion for relief more than 19 years after his conviction and provided no explanation for the delay. Because it was clear that he could not prevail, the appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
