 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Southeastern Distrib. Co. v. Miller Brewing Co., No. 05-969,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was material issue of fact regarding why distributor sold and how it ended up in financial distress. Under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-72-206(6), material fact existed on whether company's actions was refusal to deal with franchise in good faith. Summary judgment was proper on distributor's claim under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 3-5-1110 and -1108.
|
|||||
| Sporer v. State, No. CR 05-601,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant's petition did not state a cognizable claim, the trial court did not err in denying the writ of error coram nobis. Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not a ground to grant a writ of error coram nobis, and relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 was not available as defendant was not in custody.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. Norris, No. 05-642,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant did not establish cause to conclude that petition for writ of habeas corpus should issue, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a), where, if any irregularity existed as to his sentencing, he waived it by failing to raise issue at trial, and trial court was not deprived of jurisdiction to sentence appellant with higher number of felony convictions.
|
|||||
| Williams v. State, No. CA CR05-223,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 15, 2006, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's attorney filed a notice of appeal after the denial of his motion to suppress, but did not file an appeal of the order of conditional plea entered a month later. Pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 2(e), the state supreme court granted defendant's motion to file a belated appeal, because defendant was not at fault for the attorney's error.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
