 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Johnson v. State, No. CR 07-296,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Martin v. Pierce, No. 06-950,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A judgment that a husband was a child's father was affirmed as an attorney ad litem was properly appointed to protect the child's interests, Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(4) could not be used to modify a divorce decree in which paternity was acknowledged, and Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-115 did not overrule the case law upon which the circuit court had relied.
|
|||||
| McMickle v. Griffin, No. 06-672,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The tractors owners' petition for rehearing in a wrongful death action was denied where the court had properly concluded, inter alia, that the issue for the jury was whether the tractor with the attached plow, which exceeded 102 inches in width, was moved on the highway during daylight hours in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 27-35-206(a) (2004).
|
|||||
| Munson v. Ark. Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening, No. 06-933,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After appeal of sex offender adjudication was dismissed on ground that appellant had not received notice of Arkansas Department of Corrections Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment Committee's (SOSRA's) final decision, court denied SOSRA's petition for rehearing because Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922 required SOSRA to send "findings" to appellant.
|
|||||
| Nash v. Ark. Elevator Safety Bd., No. 06-1257,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to its authority under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2006) to reach sua sponte issues of deficiencies in briefs, the court did not reach the merits of an appeal because of appellant's failure to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-1 (2006); appellant's brief was not double-spaced as required by R. 4-1.
|
|||||
| Simpson v. State, No. CR 07-299,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c) required that the inmate's petition for postconviction relief had to be filed within 60 days of the date the mandate issued. Inmate filed his petition more than four years after the mandate issued. Thus, trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant inmate's request for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.
|
|||||
| Small v. State, No. CR 06-1364,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, No. CR 07-241,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal of denial of postconviction relief was dismissed where his initial postconviction petition did not contain his verified signature, as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(d), and certificate of verification was filed outside of 60-day limit required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c), and had no effect on timely, but unverified, petition.
|
|||||
| State v. Grisby, No. CR06-1269,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 17, 2007, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although court accepted jurisdiction over State's appeal in a criminal case, the court did not reach the merits of the appeal because the State's argument, which was that the trial court violated the separation-of-powers doctrine, was not preserved for review as it was never argued before the trial court.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
