 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Riley, CA 03-998,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, June 2, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed a negligence complaint with prejudice because an injured party filed a timely complaint, but failed to complete service on a driver within 120 days; the injured party was prevented from invoking the saving statute.
|
|||||
| Arbaugh v. AG Processing, Inc., CA 03-1057,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE, TWO AND THREE, June 2, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation commission did not err in affirming decision that claimant failed to prove by preponderance of evidence his cognitive dysfunction and psychological problems were causally related to 440-volt electrical shock suffered at work.
|
|||||
| Cox v. State, CACR 03-1448,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 2, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of probation was proper, where defendant did not move to dismiss the revocation petition due to lack of speedy hearing prior to hearing, thus waiving right; defendant was informed of reasons for revocation and sentence was proper.
|
|||||
| Delta Dental Plan of Ark., Inc. v. Dir. of Ark. Empl. Sec. Dep't, E03-279,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, June 2, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board of review did not err in reversing finding claimant was discharged for misconduct in connection with work in assisting co-worker in obtaining test information from computer files allowing co-worker an advantage when testing for job promotion.
|
|||||
| Gee v. Gee, CA03-1465,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 2, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly modified child custody to a father where the motivation for the mother's move was to move the child away from her father, and since the move, the mother violated the trial court's visitation order by cancelling the midweek visitation.
|
|||||
| Harbour v. Harbour, CA03-380,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, June 2, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly awarded primary custody of children to their mother where she was the primary care giver, the father engaged in humiliating behavior towards the mother, and the father had an affair while he was married.
|
|||||
| Jefferson v. State, CA CR 03-781,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 2, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was reversible error admitting co-defendant's statement and was violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, as, even changing his name to pronoun, it was obvious that references were indirect or veiled references to him.
|
|||||
| Key v. Coryell, CA 03-1188,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 2, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court chose not to recognize a cause of action for educational malpractice and trial court did not err in dismissing a mother's suit against a school for, inter alia, outrage, because her son's fourth-grade picture was not in the yearbook.
|
|||||
| Madison County v. Treat, CA03-1327,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 2, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported Workers' Compensation Commission's decision that worker proved his bowel surgery and resulting complications were caused by his back surgery. TTD benefits were proper, as worker was not within his healing period.
|
|||||
| Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sherry Garner Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., CA03-0919,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 2, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted the insurer's summary judgment motion; as the insurance company was the carrier for the driver of the car involved in the accident, it provided primary coverage to the passenger injured in the accident.
|
|||||
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. |
