Arkansas, June, 2006, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Arkansas - June 1, 2006

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

Bunn v. State, No. CR 05-326, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 1, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

Jordan v. State, No. CR 05-1162, SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 1, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free

Search Cases for 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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal