Arkansas, May, 2006, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Arkansas - May 18, 2006

Collins v. Brewer, No. 05-874, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Because an inmate did not provide a sufficient record for an appellate court to review, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the inmate's pro se writ of mandamus.

Search Cases for Free

Conlee v. Conlee, No. 05-743, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Appellate court denied a wife's motion to dismiss the third and fourth notices of appeal filed by a husband as the notices of appeal designated the hearings and the proceedings from the husband had appealed as required by Ark. R. Civ. P. App. 3(e), and the husband filed the record within the time granted by the extension.

Search Cases for Free

Davis v. State, CR 05-869, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Denial of a petition to vacate and set aside judgment was affirmed because the petition did not meet the burden imposed by Ark. Code Ann. ? 16-112-202(c)(1)(B) and (C) to identify a generally accepted scientific testing method that would have produced new and noncumulative evidence materially relevant to appellant's assertion of actual innocence.

Search Cases for Free

Hanks v. Sneed, No. 05-1149, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Individual appellees were all State employees. The complaint against them also requested money damages from each individual named, meaning that the lawsuit implicated the State's financial resources. In sum, the claims against all appellees in their official capacities were barred by the Sovereign Immunity Clause of the Arkansas Constitution.

Search Cases for Free

Hill v. State, No. CR 05-834, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Because an inmate did not meet the predicate requirements set forth in Ark. Code Ann. ??16-112-202(a)(1), (c)(1) in seeking scientific testing, the appellate court affirmed the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Search Cases for Free

In re Adoption of Rules 6-9 & 6-10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court & Court of Appeals, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL], SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

In re Adoption of Supreme Court Rule 4-7, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL], SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Johnson v. State, No. CR 05-1180, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant right to have negroid hairs retested in his capital murder case; rather, it complied with state supreme court's mandate in most recent case to have hairs retested by pointing out retest had already occurred in preparation for a second trial, and, thus, state supreme court's mandate had been fulfilled.

Search Cases for Free

Lacy v. Flake & Kelly Mgmt., No. 05-827, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: District court properly granted a building owner and its agent summary judgment on an individual's negligence claim where the owner's lease with the individual's employer did not remove it from the general rule that landlords did not owe tenants a duty to protect them from criminal acts and the individual was a tenant, not a business invitee.

Search Cases for Free

Lacy v. State, No. CR 05-69, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 18, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of his petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 as the inmate was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to file a motion to dismiss because the inmate filed his own pro se motion to dismiss, and the denial of that motion was affirmed on appeal.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal