 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| IGF Ins. Co. v. Hat Creek P'ship, 01-1267,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 6, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The provisions under the Federal Crop Insurance Act mandating arbitration clauses in federal crop reinsurance policies preempted the Arkansas statute that would ordinarily have rendered insurance contract arbitration clauses unenforceable.
|
|||||
| Jefferson v. State, CR 02-92,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 6, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where police were patrolling a trailer park known for drug trafficking at 2:00 a.m., and defendant appeared from between two trailers and attempted to evade police, there was a reasonable suspicion that something illegal was afoot to justify a stop.
|
|||||
| McCullough v. State, TEN 94-113,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arkansas Supreme Court granted defendant's pro se motion for rule on clerk seeking to proceed with the appeal, where counsel, who filed a notice of appeal, did not act to protect defendant's right to appeal by proceeding further with the appeal.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. State, CR 01-993,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The witness's testimony about the victim's comments to her prior to the victim's murder were admissible as an excited utterance because they were made after the victim experienced extreme mental and physical violence.
|
|||||
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. |
