 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| ANDERSON v. SAVE-A-LOT, CA99-1362,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of workers compensation benefits to employee was affirmed where she did not establish by employer reporting procedures and the notes of her own physician that her injury was work-related.
|
|||||
| Bly v. State, CACR98-595,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment reversed; because trial court imposed two concurrent 10-year sentences, with execution of sentences suspended for five years, it was improper for trial court, upon revocation, to order sentences to run consecutively.
|
|||||
| Bonwich v. King, CA99-904,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Applying full faith and credit to another state's child support enforcement order inappropriate where record did not indicate authenticated order from other state court and deference was given merely on ex parte communications.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Pitcher, CA 99-1301,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since there were no issues of fault to decide in appellants' legal malpractice case, summary judgment against appellants was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, CACR99-1475,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminal appellant's failure to find an attorney because of her incarceration and financial difficulties did not constitute circumstances warranting a finding that appellant forfeited her right to an attorney.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, CACR 99-1226,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminal appellant had failed to preserve for appeal his argument relating to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for battery, as he had not moved for a directed verdict at trial.
|
|||||
| Daniels v. Affiliated Foods Southwest, CA 99-1149,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE, THREE AND FOUR, May 31, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of employee's workers' compensation claim affirmed where employee failed to follow employer's procedure for reporting claims and failed to provide notice of claim to employer within statutory 48 hour period.
|
|||||
| Dowell v. Conrad, CA 99-1444,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the affidavit of appellants' expert was inconsistent with prior deposition testimony, it could not be used to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the proximate cause of death to ward off summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Downing v. University of Arkansas, CA99-1230,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 31, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed a finding that appellant's workers' compensation benefits were calculated based on wages earned at the time of the accident that caused appellant's compensable injury rather than when appellant became disabled.
|
|||||
| Dye v. State, CA CR 99-1023,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 31, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's conviction for stalking affirmed where there was substantial evidence that he expressly threatened to harm both the victim and her husband placing both in imminent fear of death or serious bodily harm.
|
|||||
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. |
