 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alcoholic Bev. Control v. Bethell, CA 02-987,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where businesswoman sought to transfer her retail liquor license to another location, board's findings that there were already sufficient number of alcoholic beverage permits in proposed area were insufficient, and remand was required.
|
|||||
| Anthony v. State, CACR02-505,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis that a videotape was destroyed by police; defendant failed to make a showing that the loss of the tape was of such prejudicial magnitude as to warrant dismissal.
|
|||||
| Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Jackson, CA02-802,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although two relatives did not qualify for an adoption subsidy, as two minor children were not in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS), a trial court had the authority to order DHS to pay for care and services provided.
|
|||||
| Bradley v. Conagra Foods, CA02-1183,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In workers' compensation case, most of medical records claimant wished to present in rehearing could have been available at the time of the original hearing; thus, she failed to exercise due diligence and her motion for rehearing was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Bristow v. State, CA CR 02-1109,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 14, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the conditional-guilty pleas were not signed by the prosecutor, and the appellate court had no record that indicated acquiescence by the prosecutor to the plea, defendants' appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Broadus v. State, CACR02-1006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's admission to using methamphetamine did not support finding that he possessed methamphetamine with intent to deliver. State's failure to charge use of illegal drugs in violation of conditions of suspended imposition of sentence was fatal.
|
|||||
| Campbell v. Huddle, CA 02-1113,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The statute of frauds applied to prevent a prospective buyer from obtaining specific performance of an oral agreement to purchase land; the buyer failed to establish promissory estoppel to prevent the statute's application.
|
|||||
| Cloverleaf Express v. Fouts, CA 02-1187,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Workers' Compensation Commission remanded to the administrative law judge for an adjudication of the employee's entitlement to workers' compensation benefits, the order was not final and not appealable.
|
|||||
| Costner v. Adams, CA 02-721,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 14, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Verdict and damages award in favor of estate was upheld on several grounds, where employee, who killed his employer's neighbor, was liable for manslaughter, and employer was accomplice. Employer was negligent for having gun at scene.
|
|||||
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. |
