 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blackwell v. State, No. CR 98-456,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his writ of error coram nobis was denied where he failed to establish that there was some fundamental error at trial and issues which were raised at trial and on the record on direct appeal of the judgment were settled and not cognizable as grounds for a writ of error coram nobis.
|
|||||
| Burchfield v. State, No. CR 05-325,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 was filed before the mandate following affirmance of the judgment was issued; therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition.
|
|||||
| Crawford v. State, CR 04-1114,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005 Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of subsequent drug activity was admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 16-97-103 (Supp. 2003) because the list of admissible evidence was not exhaustive, despite the fact that such character evidence would not have been admissible in the guilt phase of the trial under Ark. R. Evid. 404 (2004).
|
|||||
| Crenshaw v. Eudora Sch. Dist., 04-1291,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving a certified question, it was determined that Arkansas case law holding that school districts were not arms of the state government was still good law. Ark. Code Ann. ¿¿ 6-13-101, 6-13-102 (1999) showed the general assembly's intent to classify school districts as body corporates.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Parham, 04-929,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Medical malpractice action in wrongful death action was controlled by 2-year medical malpractice statute of limitations, Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 16-114-203, and action was barred where alleged negligence occurred on January 26 and 29, 2001, and complaint was filed on February 25, 2004, 3 years past date of alleged misreadings of deceased's chest x-rays.
|
|||||
| Dennis v. Norris, No. 05-29,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Flanery v. State, CR 05-26,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of testimony of defendant's daughter was permissible under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) and 403 where there were similarities in age and presence of the victims in the same household, and the daughter's testimony was relevant and not too remote in time from the victim's abuse. State did not improperly charge defendant with ten counts of rape.
|
|||||
| Giles v. Harrington, Miller, Neihouse & Krug, 04-1209,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to a law firm, a lawyer's estate, and two attorneys in connection with trustees' legal malpractice action because there was no privity between the parties pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 16-22-310(a) (1999), and therefore the trustees did not have standing to bring the action.
|
|||||
| Hewitt v. State, CR 04-37,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could not appeal the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea where the plea was not conditionally premised on the denial of a suppression motion under Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3, there was no challenge to evidence presented in a sentencing hearing, and the appeal was not a post-trial motion challenging the validity of the sentence.
|
|||||
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. |
