 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Miller v. Kroger Co., CA 02-480,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS TWO, THREE AND FOUR, May 21, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to a grocery store in shopper's suit for malicious prosecution where the evidence was in dispute as to whether there was a knowing concealment, upon her person of the unpurchased books and magazine.
|
|||||
| Murphy v. Stone, CA02-1066,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 21, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court had not erred when it found father's consent was not required to grant adoption, where there was evidence that the father failed, without justifiable cause, to communicate with his minor child or provide support for him for one year.
|
|||||
| Polk v. State, CA CR 02-1264,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 21, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Witness who testified that she was manager-level employee, that she handled the store when the manager was absent, and that as such she was familiar with the store's merchandise pricing, had independent actual knowledge of value of stolen articles.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. State, CACR02-1185,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 21, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Theft victim met statutory requirement of having possessory and proprietary interest in car because of her downpayment for car, even though dealer had title. Price paid was proper to determine value, given time period between purchase and theft.
|
|||||
| Rutledge v. Christ is the Answer Fellowship, Inc., CA 02-1249,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 21, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred when it certified appeal as to fewer than all of claims where certificate did not conform to requirements of rule of civil procedure that any likely danger of hardship or injustice could have been alleviated by immediate appeal.
|
|||||
| St. Mary's Hosp. v. Casso, CA02-1236,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 21, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The workers' compensation commission properly found a causal relationship between the employee's carpal tunnel syndrome and her employment responsibilities at the hospital to warrant an award of disability benefits.
|
|||||
| Tripp v. Miller, CA 01-365,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 21, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in reforming deed to tenants in common where deed was as joint tenants with right of survivorship and was not ambiguous. No constructive trust existed between decedent and landowner as there was no confidential relationship.
|
|||||
| Waldron Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA 02-946,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 21, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The circuit court never acquired jurisdiction over the nursing home's appeal from the hearing officer because a final agency decision was not made, as a consequence of non-compliance with either applicable statute.
|
|||||
| Wineland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., CA02-1304,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 21, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The customer's appeal from a summary judgment entered against her in her negligence lawsuit against the store was dismissed for want of jurisdiction where a pending claim against a cleaning crew remained unresolved.
|
|||||
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. |
