 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Foote v. State, CACR06-731,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statements to police officers were admissible at trial against him because (1) defendant did not clearly terminate the interviews with officers by clearly and unambiguously asking to see his lawyer; and (2) the fact that he said he would not sign his statements unless his lawyer was present did not change the fact that statements were admissible.
|
|||||
| Grady v. State, CACR06-1290,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery and attempted rape in violation of Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-12-103, 5-14-103, and 5-3-201 were proper because defendant approached the victim, took his money, and, while brandishing a gun, asked the occupants for money. Defendant also told a witness that he tried to have sex with a female in the room.
|
|||||
| Hawkins v. Ark. HHS, CA07-94,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant left her one-year-old child outside to be bitten by a pit bull dog, the child was adjudicated dependent; appellant failed to obtain employment or housing and tested positive for drugs. Her appeal of the order terminating parental rights lacked merit. Counsel was permitted to withdraw under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3.
|
|||||
| Hickman v. Kellogg, Brown & Root, CA06-1388,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of permanent-partial-disability benefits, temporary-total-disability benefits, and permanent-total-disability benefits to an employee in a workers' compensation action was improper because those benefits were denied notwithstanding the parties' stipulations that a knee injury and a total right-knee replacement were compensable.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, CACR06-1408,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where both the victim and the eyewitness testified that defendant hit the victim during the time that her sister was stabbing the victim, the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant purposely aided in the commission of first-degree battery in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-201. The revocation of defendant's probation was proper.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Vowell, CA06-1079,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in dismissing suit under Ark. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for plaintiff's failure to appear at trial; she had not received notice, it could not be said there had been no action shown on the record for past 12 months, court should have complied with rule 41(b) and given notice of its intention to dismiss, and her due process rights were violated.
|
|||||
| Kingrey v. Massey, CA 06-1314,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child support arrearages were properly awarded to a wife pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-234(b) where her former husband could not rely on the doctrine of equitable estoppel as a defense; that the husband hoped not to have child support accrue and owed a substantial lump-sum was not contemplated by the concept of "detrimental reliance."
|
|||||
| Kitterman v. Kitterman, CA06-1319,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order requiring former husband and former wife to sell certain personal property by auction pursuant to a divorce decree was not clearly erroneous because hearing testimony of the parties was conflicting as to whether they had come to an agreement regarding property division; thus, trial court properly found that there was no meeting of the minds.
|
|||||
| Klein v. State, CA CR 06-1076,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant wrote a hot check in Missouri, trial court had territorial jurisdiction under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-1-111, 5-1-104 because hot check statute of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-37-302 specifically spoke of checks drawn on in-state banks and defendant's check was drawn on an Arkansas bank account, in which there was insufficient funds to cover.
|
|||||
| McDaniel v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., CA06-1345,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence did not support the denial of wage-loss benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-522(b)(1) where a claimant had a prior anatomical impairment to his left knee, he had other health issues that arose previously, and he had significant restrictions; it was error to rely on the fact that he had suffered two subsequent heart attacks.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
