 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Criswell v. State, CACR05-154,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Deshazo v. State, CACR04-1001,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant did not renew directed-verdict motion following State's rebuttal testimony, his sufficiency arguments were not preserved for appeal. Sheriff acted in good faith in granting immediate possession of defendant's property instead of writ of possession, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-310; suppression would not serve exclusionary rule.
|
|||||
| Donovan v. State, CA05-655,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's one-day suspended sentence for criminal contempt had expired, on March 11, 2005, there was no remainder of jail time previously imposed, and the trial court erred in executing the sentence on that date. Defendant's constitutional claims as to second contempt order were not preserved for appellate review, Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 4.
|
|||||
| Gosnell v. Dir., E05-219,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order finding that a business was not exempt from paying unemployment insurance taxes on cable splicers because it did not meet all three of criteria set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-210(e) was upheld where a worker represented business's interests on jobsites where he performed cable splicing, therefore making each jobsite a place of business.
|
|||||
| Hegwood v. State, CA CR 05-1220,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for aggravated assault on a family or household member, in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-26-306(a), where there was chase in parking lot, during which defendant jumped onto hood of his wife's car; defendant's car struck wife's car head on and with sufficient force to buckle the hood of his car.
|
|||||
| Holden v. Cloud, CA 05-1274,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was properly awarded to a sister and her husband in their action against a brother for the establishment of an easement by agreement or prescription where the brother himself had provided evidence that an irrigation system was an agreed venture that benefitted and burdened all of the farming land owned by the parties.
|
|||||
| ITT Auto. v. Hendrix, CA05-01411,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a workers' compensation matter, Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission did not err in determining decision as to treatment protocol was res judicata because substantial evidence supported the decision that the protocol was considered and authorized.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. State, CACR05-1097,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for the rape of his minor daughter, in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(3)(A), was upheld where the victim testified that defendant began having sex with her when she was eleven-and-a-half years old. The acts described by the victim satisfied the definition of sexual intercourse in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(10).
|
|||||
| Newcomb v. State, CACR05-1119,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In challenge to validity of search warrant, and subsequent search, trial court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence because even if probable cause did not exist under the Fourth Amendment and Ark. Const. art. 2 § 15, officers relied, in good faith, on the search warrant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
