 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adams v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA 06-58,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a mother tested positive for drugs, failed to provide a home for her children, avoided visitation due to fear of drug testing, did not keep in contact with social services, and did nothing towards meeting her goals or cooperating with social services, her parental rights were properly terminated under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3).
|
|||||
| Bier v. Mills, CA06-28,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the evidence showed that paternal grandparents allowed a minor child to move in with his father in violation of a custody order, a trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that visitation with the paternal grandparents at the present time was not in the best interest of the child under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-107.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, CACR05-33,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND TWO, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred by failing to require the State to reveal to defendant a calendar that was used to help the complainant remember events when the alleged sexual assault took place because it was not work product, Ark. R. Crim. P. 17.5, and the calendar was important to defendant's attempts to establish a time line and to impeach the complainant.
|
|||||
| Bumgardner v. State, CACR05-00963,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following an investigatory stop, defendant was not entitled to suppress evidence of a large amount of drugs and scales found by a deputy during a search incident to arrest. The direct and circumstantial evidence was sufficient to show that defendant possessed the drugs with the intent to deliver, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401(d).
|
|||||
| Childs v. State, CACR 05-1245,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant was entitled to eight peremptory charges under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-33-305(b), and the trial court erred by not requiring the State to prove purposeful discrimination after defendant gave race neutral reasons for the strikes, defendant's conviction was affirmed due to his failure to mount proper arguments on appeal.
|
|||||
| Clark v. State, CACR05-1341,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's initial directed-verdict motion at close of State's case failed to point to any specific flaw in the evidence and it did not specify any elements of criminal acts of terroristic threatening and kidnaping that were not proven. As his motion was non-specific, under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1, its denial was not preserved for appellate review.
|
|||||
| Cole v. Clay, CA 05-528,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS THREE AND FOUR, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's decision in a dispute regarding a boundary line between properties was remanded because there was no basis in the evidence to support the decision; there was no explanation of the legal theory or equitable principals applied, nor did the trial court reconcile an inconsistency in its credibility determination.
|
|||||
| DuPriest v. State, CACR05-1352,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for maintaining a drug premises in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-402(a)(2) was affirmed as the testimony of an accomplice who stated he helped defendant manufacture methamphetamine was corroborated by defendant's own actions when the police asked to enter the apartment where the meth lab was located.
|
|||||
| Gough-Jones v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-1391,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the evidence showed that a mother failed to ensure transportation for a child to school, failed several drug tests, and failed to keep those using drugs away from her home, termination of her parental rights was proper under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3(B)(i)(a) where the child had already been out of the home for more than one year.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
