 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Love Box Co. v. Salley, CA00-1400,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission remanded the case to ALJ to determine TTD benefits, there was no final determination on the issue of TTD benefits and commission's decision was not a final, appealable order.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Transamerica Commer. Fin. Corp., CA 00-1465,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 20, 2001, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in refusing to set aside default judgment due to obligee's failure to serve affidavit on guarantor, as complaint which was served contained the same information and guarantor was not prejudiced by not receiving the affidavit.
|
|||||
| Napier v. State, CA CR 00-1286,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As trial court gave jury a version of an instruction that had been amended after defendant allegedly committed a crime, and this instruction made it easier for the State to prove its case, a violation of ex post facto clause mandated a new trial.
|
|||||
| Orrell v. United States Natural Res., Inc., CA00-1437,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured employee failed to overcome the statutory presumption that his work related injury was substantially occasioned by the use of drugs or alcohol after he tested positive for alcohol and marijuana.
|
|||||
| Riddle v. State, CACR 00-1290,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by denying motion to suppress alleged unconstitutionally suggestive photographic lineup used to identify defendant in court because it was not so suggestive as to create substantial possibility of misidentification.
|
|||||
| Sweeney v. Cedar Am., CA00-1217,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits from her employer for an alleged mental injury, because she did not demonstrate the existence of a compensable physical injury that caused the mental injury.
|
|||||
| Upton v. State, CACR 00-1369,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Marijuana conviction was affirmed because undercover agent's testimony was credible, sufficient evidence that did not require corroboration, and defendant should have objected when trial began to cousin's allegedly biased ex-wife being juror.
|
|||||
| Wal-Mart Stores v. Leach, CA 00-1457,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence connected claimant's disc injury to her job, and MRI showed herniated disc not previously present so workers' compensation commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Worley v. Arthur, CA 00-1112,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In medical injury case, trial court correctly required patient to present expert testimony regarding information given to her about the insertion of an experimental device during neurosurgery to avoid summary judgment.
|
|||||
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. |
