 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. Harkey, 00-1348,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of prohibition had to be granted. The Stone County chancery court had no authority to grant relief to respondent individuals as Arkansas law dictated their action against state administrative agency had to brought in Pulaski County.
|
|||||
| City of Benton v. Arkansas Soil & Water Comm'n, 01-60,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public officials did not show informality in administrative hearings about water development project prejudiced substantial rights or notice of hearing was inadequate. Unsworn public hearing statements were not improper ex parte communications.
|
|||||
| Cook v. State, CR 01-0224,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Documents admitted into evidence were relevant as they made existence of defendant's intent to commit aggravated robbery more probable. Prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh probative value of evidence.
|
|||||
| Dworshak v. State, CR 01-604,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Houff v. State, CR 01-595,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because counsel failed to accept responsibility for not filing record within required time, motion for rule on the clerk was denied. Attorney was ordered to file affidavit accepting full responsibility for not timely filing notice of appeal.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, CR 00-129,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Kindall v. State, CR 86-222,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| May Constr. Co. v. Riverdale Dev. Co., LLC, 01-121,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 14, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal of order denying motion to stay contract actions pending arbitration of contract disputes as the contract specified was dismissed because the order denying the stay was not a final, appealable order.
|
|||||
| Moix-McNutt v. Brown, 01-283,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court denied appellant's request to supplement record with motion for stay and the response, as these items were in the record, but it remanded to the trial court to settle the record as to a subpoena and order posting a deposition.
|
|||||
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. |
