 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barclay v. Waters, 03-369,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 20, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss taxpayer's class action challenging the constitutionality of a session law that enacted a compensation use tax was improperly denied, where the law had already been found to be valid in previous litigation.
|
|||||
| Benavidez v. State, CR 04-98,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 20, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A pro se defendant who appealed a trial court's denial of his petition to vacate a judgment convicting him of first-degree murder and imposing a life imprisonment sentence was granted a writ of certiorari to bring up the transcript from the denial.
|
|||||
| Burnett v. State, CR 89-220,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 20, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's pro se motion for photocopy at public expense of transcript lodged on appeal was denied because he had not demonstrated that there was any timely postconviction remedy available to him; all persons had to bear cost of photocopying.
|
|||||
| Catlett v. State, CR 95-10,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 20, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's petition for writ of error coram nobis was properly denied, where defendant did not explain what proceedings were pursued by State or what prejudice he suffered; defense would have been aware of any infraction by State of the statute.
|
|||||
| Cloird v. State, CR 03-597,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 20, 2004, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Withholding of allegedly exculpatory DNA test results did not violate Brady because the rape victim testified that the petitioner had orally raped her twice, and the evidence at the hearing was that samples taken from the victim for DNA testing were vaginal, not oral, swabs; thus, the DNA results were not material.
|
|||||
| Doe v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 03-1306,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 20, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly denied the workers a restraining order seeking to prevent the state from receiving and reviewing expunged criminal records in order to determine employment eligibility for state employees.
|
|||||
| Felton Oil Co., L.L.C. v. Gee, 03-747,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 20, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly instructed the jury on disruption damages and restoration costs stemming from the migration of petroleum products onto landowners' property via a leak in certain piping from a gas station operator's underground storage tank.
|
|||||
| Hampton v. State, CR 03-1334,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 20, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Uncontradicted testimony by a child support enforcement office employee, that he believed defendant's child turned 17, did not meet the definition of hearsay, because it was merely an opinion, and it was sufficient to establish the child's age.
|
|||||
| Holt v. McCastlain, 04-343,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 20, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Driver's insurer hired an attorney to represent driver after an auto accident. Attorney, in turn, hired accident reconstructionist. Reconstructionist's report and testimony were privileged communications that prosecutor could not subpoena.
|
|||||
| Hurst v. Dixon, 03-669,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, May 20, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court did not err in refusing to grant truck driver and owner setoff under MIGA, where Mississippi Insurance Guaranty Association was not a party and there was no way to determine whether claim arising from driver's injuries was covered.
|
|||||
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. |
