Arkansas, June, 2005, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Arkansas - June 8, 2005

Rice v. Welch Motor Co., CA04-1063, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Because all of the claims had not been resolved and the claim for money damages remained, and an Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certificate had not been executed, the neighbors' appeal was dismissed without prejudice to refile upon the entry of an order that complied with Rule 54(b).

Search Cases for Free

Sanders v. State, CACR04-629, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant's suspended sentence for forgery was properly revoked because the State presented documentation of defendant's use of a stolen credit card and video surveillance tapes of defendant's criminal trespass on private property. The findings of the criminal offenses were not clearly against a preponderance of the evidence.

Search Cases for Free

Stephens v. Miller, CA04-1106, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 8, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free

Overview: The trial court erred in directing a verdict for a father in a motion to transfer because at the time a mother filed the motion, there was evidence that the father lived in another county; however, the transfer was improper because the father never established a residence outside of the first county under Ark. Code Ann. ? 9-10-102(f)(1)(B)(i).

Search Cases for Free

Stone v. Dollar Gen. Stores, CA04-1194, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS FOUR AND ONE, June 8, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free

Overview: Court overturned an order from Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission holding that employee failed to prove that cervical surgery was reasonably necessary because Commission's opinion did not address surgical report or post-surgical diagnosis; reports could be evidence linking employee's injuries to a robbery in which she was choked and dragged.

Search Cases for Free

Walker v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA04-1238, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Mother's parental rights to her child were properly terminated under Ark. Code Ann. ? 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) (Supp. 2003) because she suffered from personality disorder, had mental health issues, was homeless, and was unemployed. She was unable to maintain custody of her four other children, one of whom she was convicted of feloniously assaulting.

Search Cases for Free

Wiederkehr v. Timmerman, CA04-940, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Trial court did not err in finding that appellants had not established the right to use a road, by adverse possession and easement reservation, because evidence showed that the road was infrequently used; that it was a narrow, dirt road closely bordered by mature trees, with locked gates; and that it was not "kept" or used by the public.

Search Cases for Free

Wiggins v. State, CACR04-776, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant's motion for a new trial was properly denied because it was within the trial court's discretion to discredit a witness's recanting testimony, especially in light of the fact that she admitted to lying during trial. There was clearly other evidence to support defendant's conviction, even without the witness's allegedly false testimony.

Search Cases for Free

Yant v. Allstate Ins. Co., CA 04-1140, COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying an insured's motion for new trial after jury awarded him $ 8,000 in his action against an insurer to recover under uninsured motorist provision of his policy because the jury was entitled to believe that not all of the medical expenses set forth by the insured were related to his motor vehicle accident.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal