 |
|
 |
|
|
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. HHS v. Briley, No. 05-1278,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 1, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly found Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in civil contempt for failing to provide counseling, transportation, random drug screens, or home visitation to mother in dependency-neglect case where only defense asserted by DHHS was that, considering staffing shortages, it was doing all it could for the mother.
|
|||||
| Barron v. State, No. CR 06-506,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 1, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant's counsel had timely filed a notice of appeal following defendant's conviction, Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 16 required the counsel to continue to represent defendant throughout his appeal; thus, the counsel was ordered to lodge the record to perfect the appeal.
|
|||||
| City of Farmington v. Smith, No. 05-1208,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 1, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In interlocutory appeal, appellants' motion for summary judgment was upheld where court found that as matter of law, no reasonable official could have thought that appellants' course of conduct was lawful.
|
|||||
| Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Ark., Inc. v. Running M Farms, Inc., No. 05-920,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 1, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of farmer and two corporations he controlled was reversed where farmer lacked standing to sue and where claims were not actionable in tort because wrongs alleged against insurer stemmed only from disputed policy liability. Corporations were entitled to statutory fees and penalty because they had been forced to file an action.
|
|||||
| First United, Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 05-796,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 1, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to appellees in property owner's action for breach of title insurance policy where judgment in favor of time share purchasers against owner's predecessor-in-interest was not covered by policy, which insured against defects in title and unmarketability of title, as opposed to unmarketability of property itself.
|
|||||
| Jordan v. State, No. CR 05-1162,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 1, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| McEwing v. State, No. CR05-1366,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 1, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's exclusion of a witness who defendant identified as an alibi witness for the first time on the morning of trial was proper under Ark. R. Crim. P. 19.7 as the State was surprised by the identification of the witness and it would have been unfair to allow defendant to proceed with the witness's testimony.
|
|||||
| Nooner v. State, No. CR 94-358,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 1, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The inmate's motions seeking to have his sentence executed without delay and seeking immediate execution of the sentence were premature because he offered nothing to establish that an execution date had been set and failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances since the December 2004 motion to set an execution date was declared moot.
|
|||||
| Pro-Comp Mgmt. v. R.K. Enters., LLC, No. 05-459,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 1, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding that although appellees' liability for misappropriation of trade secrets had been proven, evidence presented was too speculative to prove the actual damages incurred by corporations under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-606 where the abstract presented did not establish either corporations' lost profits or appellees' gains.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
