 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cullum v. Harris, CA02-1146,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission properly rejected the testimony of a former employee's physician, as the physician did not have a complete medical history and the medical records he relied upon were incomplete.
|
|||||
| Cummins v. Berry, CA02-676,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment quieting title to land was proper where a reservation in the grantors' deed to the state allowing grantors to build a cottage on the land was abandoned by non-use for 70 years until filing of a suit by the present owners.
|
|||||
| Denton v. Pennington, CA 02-1033,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 14, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improper against claim by tenant against a landlord for personal injury where there were issues of fact as to whether the lease created a duty to maintain a deck on the leased property or whether the landlord assumed the duty.
|
|||||
| Dumas v. Tucker, CA 02-1020,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 14, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred by denying the mother's request to claim tax exemptions for her children, where the trial court failed to provide written or specific findings to support the decision. The trial judge deviated from the child support chart.
|
|||||
| Dye v. State, CA CR 02-921,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant argued the statute of limitations expired; however, a more recent statute, which applied to him, was passed that extended the statute of limitations. Thus, the child pornography and rape charges against him were not dismissed.
|
|||||
| Emerald Dev. Co. v. McNeill, CA 02-1159,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 14, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In injunction action, court was not engaged in the regulation of airspace, but of land use, and did not restrict what airspace could be used. Thus, the Federal Aviation Act did not preempt state law where a proposed new airport created safety hazard.
|
|||||
| Irby v. Irby, CA02-560,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in attempting to enforce a temporary alimony award that was entered in a previous case that had since been nonsuited; thus, the ex-husband was not required to pay temporary alimony to the ex-wife.
|
|||||
| Larry v. Grady Sch. Dist., CA 02-719,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 14, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon termination, principal obtained job in another district, resulting in surplus income, and he was not entitled to monetary damages. On appeal, counsel did not include copy of district hearing transcript. Denial of reinstatement was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. State, CACR01-1327,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Batson challenge to the voir dire of the jury might not be wholly frivolous, based upon a colloquy between the trial court and counsel. Thus, appellate court directed defendant's counsel to rebrief that case on the merits of that issue.
|
|||||
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. |
