 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jackson v. State, No. CR 04-14,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 was limited to those physically incarcerated and because Arkansas's postconviction remedy was intended to avoid persons being unjustly imprisoned, the distinction between those physically incarcerated and those at liberty did not render it a deprivation of equal protection and due process.
|
|||||
| McKenzie v. State, CR 03-775,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant gave the police officer the key to his trailer and consented to the search of his truck, the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant constructively possessed 334.4 pounds of marijuana found in duffel bags and 4.26 pounds of cocaine. While there was a passenger in the cab, defendant had the only key to the locked trailer.
|
|||||
| Mosley v. State, No. CR 05-243,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to 2001 Ark. Acts 1780, the Circuit Court of Garland County did not have jurisdiction to release on defendant's writ of habeas corpus because he was not in a prison within that county and the writ was not filed under that Act; defendant should have filed his writ of habeas corpus in Lincoln County, the county where he was incarcerated.
|
|||||
| New Holland Credit Co. v. Hill, 04-1157,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment should not have been set aside under Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(a) (2004) because it was over the 90 period; moreover, none of the conditions under Rule 60(c) were met since there was no constructive service, misprision of clerk, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or misrepresentation.
|
|||||
| Parmley v. State, No. CR 05-141,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The inmate's motion seeking permission to file an over-length brief pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(e) was granted by the supreme court because the inmate's brief was one page over the maximum amount and there was a good faith effort to comply with the page limits.
|
|||||
| Rollins v. State, CR 04-1006,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005 Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a rape case, although the prohibition on polygraph tests in Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 12-12-704 (1999) extended to the willingness or reluctance to be examined as evidence of consciousness of innocence or guilt, the State was not prohibited from introducing a redacted portion of an interview where defendant discussed taking the test.
|
|||||
| Wallis v. Ford Motor Co., 04-506,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed, for failure to state a claim, a class-action fraud and statutory deceptive trade practices lawsuit alleging that a concealed design defect caused a diminution in value of a vehicle; Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 4-88-113 (2001) limited a private cause of action to instances where actual damage or injury occurred.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Wade, No. 03-573,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sovereign immunity and Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 19-10-305(a) barred each of the inmate's causes of action against the correctional facility officials and the trial court did not err in dismissing the matter; however, the trial court was incorrect to the extent that it might have reached the merits of any part of his lawsuit.
|
|||||
| Young v. State, No. CR 04-1100,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
