 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chrysler Fin. Co., L.L.C. v. East, CA 02-1230,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 28, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where buyer purchased new car, she could not return car before making all 35 payments per the contract terms, without being liable for a deficiency. In returning the car when 1 year of payments were due, buyer breached the terms of the agreement.
|
|||||
| City of Van Buren v. Fitzer, CA02-1323,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 28, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The workers' compensation commission did not err by awarding the employee additional TTD benefits relating to his compensable back injury where the evidence sufficiently indicated his healing period had not ended.
|
|||||
| Death & Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund v. Branum, CA 02-1294,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 28, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported decision of Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission in granting judgment to appellees; Death & Permanent Total Disability Fund received 90 days notice before completion of payment and weekly benefits.
|
|||||
| Eash v. FM Corp., CA02-1267,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 28, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Worker failed to show that back pain that arose after a compensable work-related injury was caused by the injury. Workers' Compensation Commission could properly accept doctor's opinion that pain was the result of pre-existing disc disease.
|
|||||
| Foley v. State, CACR02-1346,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 28, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of robbery and theft, where, despite defendant's serious injuries from a car accident, his treating physician testified it was possible that he could have overpowered his frail, elderly victim.
|
|||||
| Golf Cars of Ark., Inc. v. Union Std. Ins. Co., CA02-1135,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 28, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of insurer was premature, where complaint filed against insured equipment lessor set forth only barest factual allegations and was rather confusing as to insured's liability for lessee's damage.
|
|||||
| Gunter v. Dir. Empl. Sec. Dep't, E03-49,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 28, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the only evidence presented was employee's testimony that he was subjected to verbal and physical abuse on the job, employee quit for good cause and was entitled to unemployment benefits.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Harris, CA 02-1170,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 28, 2003, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that father was to continue paying child support for child past age of 18; child turning 18 was a change of circumstances by operation of law sufficient to warrant modification of father's child support obligation.
|
|||||
| Hatch v. Smith, CA02-1158,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 28, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The tenants' notices of appeal were untimely and of no effect where a contempt order was interlocutory and did not fall into a category for an appealable order, and the appeal from the final judgment in the case was not filed within 30 days.
|
|||||
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. |
