 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Green v. State, CACR 00-1258,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 6, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer testified that he did not find stolen stereo equipment or money on appellant. However, his conviction was affirmed because victim positively identified him and reasonable minds could conclude that he participated in robbery.
|
|||||
| Griffin v. Tyson Foods, Inc., CA00-01306,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 6, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of workers' compensation benefits affirmed where medical evidence showed right elbow injury did not contribute to cervical spine symptomology. Latter was based on degenerative osteoarthritic changes of the vertebrae rather than trauma.
|
|||||
| Hadl v. State, CA CR 00-903,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 6, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An officer who used the "knock and talk" procedure to gain consent for a warrantless search of defendant's home was not obliged to tell defendant that he could lawfully refuse to consent and could revoke the consent at any time.
|
|||||
| Hughes v. State, CA CR 00-748,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 6, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Once the trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of defendant on the charge of manufacture of illegal drugs, State was barred by double jeopardy from filing a new charge relying on the same evidence, attempted manufacture of drugs.
|
|||||
| Hurley v. Hurley, CA00-1157,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 6, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband's income did not change materially and he testified that he could pay more child support if ordered to do so by the court. Thus, trial court's decision reducing his child support obligation was reversed and dismissed.
|
|||||
| Hutcherson v. State, CA CR 00-645,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 6, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Robbery and theft convictions were affirmed because defendant's directed verdict motions did not specify the reason why the evidence was deficient and defendant's argument that photo lineups were unduly suggestive was not preserved for appeal.
|
|||||
| Isom v. State, CACR00-1092,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 6, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant committed second-degree battery not against weight of the evidence where he precipitated the altercation. Degree of force used not reasonable when he hit victim in the head, twice while victim was lying on the ground.
|
|||||
| Kelley v. State, CACR00-01036,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 6, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though there was little forensic evidence to support rape victim's account of rape, victim's testimony, along with physical evidence collected at the scene and from appellant's vehicle, was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict.
|
|||||
| Mackey v. First Cmty. Bank, CA 00-1043,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 6, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In foreclosure action, borrowers failed to show genuine issue of material fact by alleging that bank president forced them to allow his friend to live in foreclosed property rent free, since assignment of rents to bank was not at issue.
|
|||||
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. |
