 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ark. HHS v. Smith, No. 06-06,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court remanded the petition for a writ of prohibition or a writ of certiorari by the Department of Heath and Human Services back to the trial court because the trial court was required to determine if the action in which the petition was filed was subject to a revivor under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-105.
|
|||||
| Cooper Clinic, P.A. v. Barnes, No. 05-1166,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A directed verdict should have been entered in favor of a clinic in a case brought under the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Act of 1991, Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-501 et seq., because the use of the word "institution" in Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-507 was ambiguous; therefore, it was construed in favor of the party sought to be penalized.
|
|||||
| Delanno, Inc. v. Peace , No. 05-1386,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The three-year statute of limitations for a legal malpractice action was not tolled by fraudulent concealment due to an incorrect statement made by attorneys regarding a tax liability letter; there was no furtively planned or secretly executed acts, nor was there an affirmative act of concealment. The client did not act with reasonable diligence.
|
|||||
| Douthitt v. State, No. CR 06-375,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's habeas petition did not comport with prevailing rules of procedure and appeal was dismissed; he merely concluded he was innocent and wished to have testing performed to prove that and failed to state, inter alia, basis for proving his innocence with scientific testing required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(1), (2), (5), (6), and (8).
|
|||||
| King v. State, No. CR 06-374,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal of an order denying appellant's second pro se petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 was dismissed because under Rule 37.2(c), appellant was not entitled to file a second petition where his original petition was denied with prejudice.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Home Ctrs. v. First Ark. Valley Bank, No. 05-1184,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though mortgage did not contain an acknowledgment complying with former Ark. Code Ann. § 18-12-207, facts conclusively showed mortgagor was acting on behalf of his corporation when he signed the mortgage with the bank and the trial court properly found that the bank's mortgage was valid and superior to building material supply company's lien.
|
|||||
| Nucor Corp. v. Rhine, No. 05-790,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Benefits claimant was not a special employee of a company because there was no contract for hire between the claimant and the company, and the claimant's employer was the one controlling the details of the claimant's work; therefore, a third-party tort action under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-410 was proper against the company.
|
|||||
| Ross v. State, No. CR 05-1042,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court denied appellant's motion for reconsideration of an order dismissing his appeal where his failure to file for an extension or to file his brief within the required time, without stating any good cause for that failure, had to result in the dismissal of his appeal.
|
|||||
| Seay v. C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co., No. 05-970,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim for conversion against mortgagors, a husband and wife, filed by purchaser of property that was sold at foreclosure sale was still pending against the wife where the trial court only entered judgment against the husband; hence, the judgment was not appealable under Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 2(a)(11) because it did not dispose of all pending claims.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
