 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ark. Dep't of Health v. Cotton, CA05-1154,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding that an employee suffered a compensable injury pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4) (Supp. 2005) was supported by substantial evidence where the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission had before it medical records indicating that the employee had no problems with his neck prior to the July 2002 incident.
|
|||||
| Baker v. State, CACR05-1182,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In murder case, appellate court did not address merits of defendant's claims because abstract and addendum were deficient for failing to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-2(a)(5), as she completely omitted testimony adduced in case in chief, and attempt to reproduce assertedly gruesome photographs consisted of poor-quality photocopies.
|
|||||
| Burkett v. Burkett, CA 05-957,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former husband lacked probable cause to initiate criminal trespass charges against a former wife since a divorce decree did give him exclusive possession, he failed to seek clarification of the divorce decree, and he failed to make a full disclosure to the prosecutor. Therefore, he was liable for malicious prosecution.
|
|||||
| Griffin v. Ark. Dep't of Health and Human Servs. , CA05-967,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order terminating a mother's parental rights to her three children pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(a)(2) (Supp. 2005) was upheld where the trial court did not err in placing the oldest child in the custody of a family friend; Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-338(c) clearly anticipated that one of the "goals" could be a plan for permanent custody.
|
|||||
| Hairston v. State, CACR05-1200,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court did not have jurisdiction to hear defendant's appeal from the entry of his conditional guilty pleas where defendant failed to appeal from the judgment of conviction as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Hatton v. State, CACR05-845,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The revocation of defendant's probation was proper where he violated the terms of his probation by not being current on payment of his fine, costs, or probation fees. Additionally, he had missed at least one meeting with his probation officer and had further tested positive for cocaine and marijuana.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Juanita S. Wood Family Ltd. P'ship, CA05-1202,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly awarded an injunction to a partnership in its action for the removal of a large flower box that homeowners placed on the eastern end of a road in a subdivision because the flower box, while not blocking the road in its entirety, impeded the partnership's recognized property right to use the road as access to its property.
|
|||||
| Le v. Nguyen, CA05-1178,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in including sums of cash that a wife removed from a bank safe deposit box and a strongbox in her share of the marital property in a divorce action because her admitted removal of items from the safe deposit box and her emptying of the joint savings account demonstrated a pattern of appropriating marital property for her sole use.
|
|||||
| Moses v. Castro-Lopez, CA05-1388,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court should not have granted an insurer's motion to enforce an alleged settlement because the language of correspondence between the parties did not clearly state that a settlement had been reached, and there was language that raised doubts as to whether an insured's attorney agreed to protect a subrogation lien.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
