 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Entm't & Leisure Corp. v. Razorback Entm't Chancellor Corp., CA00-876,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 16, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure of trial court to decide intervenors' claim to interest in property meant the trial court did not enter a final, appealable order. Further trial proceedings were required to adjudicate that interest as it was not a collateral matter.
|
|||||
| Goodman v. State, CA CR 00-1264,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 16, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress because the girlfriend had actual authority to consent to the search of the trailer home as she did in fact have mutual use of the property.
|
|||||
| Hill v. State, CA CR 00-1134,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 16, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Witnesses' testimony that victim accused other men, rather than her father, of perpetrating sexual abuse upon her was barred under the rape-shield law because appellant did not file written motion to introduce the testimony.
|
|||||
| Hodges v. Hodges, CA 00-661,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 16, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not clearly err in awarding child's custody to father, and child's placement with half-sibling was not presumed. Trial court erred in requiring substantial change in circumstances evidence, as final custody had not been awarded.
|
|||||
| Horne v. State, CACR00-775,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 16, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant showed that State violated speedy trial rules and burden shifted to State to show good cause for 118-day delay. State showed that 268 days were excludable from calculation; thus, appellant's speedy trial rights were not violated.
|
|||||
| Hudgins v. Dir. Empl. Sec. Dep't, E99-170,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 16, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Agency hearing appeal of unemployment insurance benefits denial was not bound by technical procedure rules; claimant's omissions displayed willful disregard of obligations, and constituted misconduct, disqualifying claimant from benefits.
|
|||||
| McGhee v. Gerber Prods., CA00-1027,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 16, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation claimant did not prove injury in course of employment caused by specific incident identifiable by time and place of occurrence and workers' compensation commission had no duty to weigh evidence in manner to allow recovery.
|
|||||
| Pipkins v. State, CACR00-867,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND FOUR, May 16, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: First-degree sexual abuse conviction was affirmed where appellant's argument exceeded the scope and nature of his objection at trial and he failed to submit the presentencing report.
|
|||||
| Rostro v. Cargill, Inc., CA 00-1070,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 16, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court was unable to remand or reach merits of appellant's argument in workers' compensation case where argument had not been raised to workers' compensation commission in first instance.
|
|||||
| Sain v. State, CACR00-634,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 16, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No abuse of discretion occurred in denying codefendants' mistrial motions after indirect reference was allegedly made to fact neither testified. Remark about locating "these folks" referred to two witnesses, not codefendants.
|
|||||
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. |
