 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hermann Cos. v. Ingram, CA06-18,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an employee filed her claim for workers' compensation benefits within two years of the onset of an aggravation of prior injury, the appellate court affirmed the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission and held the claim was timely pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-702(a)(1).
|
|||||
| Holland Group, Inc. v. Hughes, CA05-1376,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed the award of benefits to an employee for a repetitive injury because while the evidence established that the employee had engaged in repetitive motion, there was no evidence that the injury was the result of a rapid motion as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102(4)(A).
|
|||||
| Hydro-Works, Inc. v. Precision Indus., CA05-1310,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court ordered the matter to be rebriefed because appellants had not complied with Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 6(b) and (c) in that they did not submit the necessary documents in the record for teh appellate court to make a judgment on the record.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. State, CACR05-1248,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although trial court violated defendant's right to confrontation under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-310(c)(1) in admitting hearsay testimony at probation revocation hearing regarding whether defendant had moved, the error did not warrant reversal because the trial court did not rely on the evidence concerning defendant's address in revoking his probation.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, CACR 05-887,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction for rape in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(3)(A) because the jury was free to find that the victim was more credible with regard to her testimony that the sexual assault was not consensual even if there was discrepancy in what the victim was wearing and her position during the assault.
|
|||||
| Masters v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-915,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court dismissed a father's appeal that his son had been adjudicated as dependent-neglected as moot, because the father had not appealed a subsequent decision that terminated the father's parental rights to the son and Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(viii) no longer required a dependent-neglected adjudication before termination.
|
|||||
| Montgomery v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA 05-1258,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the mother appealed the judgment terminating her parental rights to three children, counsel's motion to withdraw did not explain why a meritorious appeal would not lie from the denial of appellant's request for a continuance of the termination hearing. A rebriefing was ordered.
|
|||||
| Morris v. State, CACR05-1359,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the revocation of defendant's probation pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(d) because a witness testified that defendant was the man she saw try to break into a church and the burden of proof at a revocation hearing was the preponderance of the evidence.
|
|||||
| Perez v. Furrow, CA05-1253,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The mother's appeal from a ruling that, in part, changed custody to the father was improper pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 4(a) because the mother failed to properly invoke the court's jurisdiction by filing a timely notice of appeal.
|
|||||
| Prichard v. State, CACR04-1296,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia, the trial court retained jurisdiction to enter an amended judgment until the trial record was lodged with the appellate court. Defendant never preserved his ineffective assistance argument for appellate review. His appeal was frivolous.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
