LexisNexis
  
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.


   State Courts - Arkansas - May 10, 2000

  
Potlatch Corp. v. Triplett, CA 99-1153, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 10, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free  

Overview: Because appellant had presented a prima facie case to have title in a disputed portion of land quieted in its favor, the chancellor erred in directing a verdict in favor of appellee.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Potter v. Magee, CA99-935, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: Award of damages and attorney's fees was affirmed in a breach of contract action, because the first issue raised by appellant was precluded by the law of the case doctrine, and there was no abuse of discretion in amount of fees awarded.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Rasco v. State, CACR99-1235, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant's possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia convictions were affirmed, since his argument that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause was without merit.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Ritchie Grocery v. Glass, CA 99-1206, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 10, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free  

Overview: Substantial evidence supported workers' compensation benefits award; doctor testified that appellee was diagnosed in accordance with established criteria, which implied that crime victim's symptoms were present for more than a month.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Rothbaum v. Motor Appliance Corp., CA99-1255, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: In appeal of denial of workers' compensation benefits, worker failed to show that decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and OSHA reports failed to show worker's disease was connected to employer's workplace.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Tester v. State, CR00-409, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Trammell v. State, CA 99-1085, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 10, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free  

Overview: Court could not consider merits of appeal because amended rule required that motion for directed verdict be made or renewed at close of all evidence; juvenile's attorney moved for directed verdict but did not renew motion at close of evidence.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
White v. Russellville Steel Co., CA99-1299, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: Workers' Compensation Commission decision denying appellant's claims for reclassification of benefits and for enhanced benefits affirmed because it adequately explained its conclusion and displayed a substantial basis for the denial.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
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.