 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baxley v. Baxley, CA 03-922,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court awarded both investment accounts to wife as her sole and separate property, finding they were from her sole earnings, but court made no findings supporting unequal division and no findings as to husband's contributions. Reversal was required.
|
|||||
| Brashears v. Am. Int'l S. Ins. Co., CA03-1030,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Individual excluded from insurance coverage under insurance policy was the same person driving the truck insured by the insurer. There was no doubt that the insured was the named driver excluded from coverage.
|
|||||
| Eastridge v. Ox Bodies, Inc., CA03-1201,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In employee's appeal of denial of workers' compensation benefits, judgment was affirmed; substantial evidence supported conclusion that additional medical treatment after November 28, 2000, was not causally related to April 18, 2000 injury.
|
|||||
| Evans v. Evans, CA03-786,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An award of alimony to former wife by judge who had not presided over trial was not an abuse of discretion, where the record showed that the judge considered the relevant factors such as the marriage's length and the parties' poor health and incomes.
|
|||||
| First Nat'l Bank v. Garner, CA 03-1156,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly held that security agreement executed in 1993 by husband, wife, and son (in farm operation), did not secure later separate note executed by wife in 2001, after husband and wife had separated, for purchase of new car.
|
|||||
| Hanna v. Robinson, CA 03-918,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Easements in a hallway and loft rooms to an owner were inconsistent with the neighbor's ownership, and possessory rights and should not have been granted. An owner's easement in elevator equipment room was not inconsistent with neighbor's ownership.
|
|||||
| Harvey v. SR of Ark., CA03-1190,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Compensation commission's denial of benefits did not display substantial basis for the decision by arbitrarily dismissing physician's testimony; the commission had to determine whether worker proved she suffered aggravation of preexisting condition.
|
|||||
| Holbrook v. State, CACR03-1038,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the charge for second-degree battery through a motion for directed verdict, his sufficiency of the evidence claim was not preserved for appellate review.
|
|||||
| Hopf v. Reese, CA 03-1029,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probate court had no jurisdiction to grant a child's paternal grandparents visitation with child, so, when child's maternal grandparents petitioned to adopt child, visitation order did not entitle paternal grandparents to notice of adoption hearing.
|
|||||
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. |
