 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ford v. State, No. CACR06-1030,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imposition of consecutive sentences was not in violation of defendant's due process rights or Eighth Amendment to U.S. Constitution where trial judge noted that sentences were less than maximum and that approach was consistent with other jury sentences in country; trial judge clearly exercised his discretion in accepting the jury's recommendation.
|
|||||
| France v. France, CA06-663,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce action, court did not err under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-12-315 in its valuation of previously missing assets where it did not have evidence regarding value other than husband's testimony; court was within its power to reject husband's testimony, particularly in light of evidence that his father had something to do with disappearance of items.
|
|||||
| Glover v. State, CACR06-1398,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for theft by receiving, contrary to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-36-106(a), was supported by sufficient evidence where he gave statement in which he admitted that he knew vehicle at issue was stolen; after disavowing his statement, he testified that after obtaining vehicle, he was informed by his daughter that vehicle might be stolen.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Ford Motor Credit Co., CA06-0838,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in denying debtors' motion to compel arbitration in a credit company's replevin action because an arbitration clause specifically and unambiguously provided that the company did not give up the right to enforce its security interest in a vehicle, whether by repossession or through a court of law.
|
|||||
| In re Adoption of H.L.M., No. CA 07-11,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in holding that before appellant's adoption of his wife's adopted child could go forward, he was required to obtain consent of child's biological father or produce order demonstrating that father's parental rights had been terminated where, under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-9-215, the adoption decree severed and held for naught father's rights.
|
|||||
| Luellen v. Wal-Mart Assocs., CA06-1387,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported the findings of the Workers' Compensation Commission denying the workers' compensation claim, because the claimant's injury was caused by degenerative disc disease rather than by the work-related accident of when the bags of dog food fell on her.
|
|||||
| Murray v. State, CACR06-898,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could not show prejudice from the imposition of a sentence of 20 years based on a finding of six convictions because, even if the trial court had found three felony convictions, the sentencing range under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-4-501(a)(2) was five to thirty years. Defendant's 20-year sentence was within that range.
|
|||||
| Norton v. Luttrell, CA06-1093,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to a physician in a husband's wrongful-death/survival action because when the husband filed his original suit, no order had been entered appointing him as administrator, nor were all of the wife's heirs at law named as plaintiffs, as required by Ark. Code Ann. ¿¿ 16-62-101 and 16-62-102(b) (2005).
|
|||||
| Pollard v. Ark. Dep't of HHS, CA06-964,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The termination of the mother's parental rights to a child, and the termination of the mother's daughter's parental rights to her two children, was proper, in part under Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-341(b)(3)(A) and (B) because one of the daughter's children had been adjudicated dependent-neglect and the mother did not protect her child from sexual abuse.
|
|||||
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. |
