 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Akee v. Akee, CA 00-343,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, October 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband's providing the court his address and consulting an attorney prevented him from obtaining a continuance based on lack of information. Wife was entitled to a divorce where she had proven husband's indignities toward her.
|
|||||
| Baldor Elec. Co. v. Arkansas Empl. Sec. Dep't, E 00-73,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, October 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unemployment benefits were affirmed because substantial evidence supported the finding that appellant failed to show that appellee intentionally or knowingly acted to harm its interests, or that he harmed appellant's interests.
|
|||||
| Dray v. City of Bentonville, CA00-57,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, October 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officer's termination for slapping his minor son in the face was not against public policy; although right to discipline his own child was well-established, slapping child's face was per se unreasonable means of discipline.
|
|||||
| Frazier v. State, CACR99-340,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, October 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant did not state, in his motion for directed verdict, which elements of the crimes for which he was being tried the State did not prove, his insufficiency of the evidence claim was not preserved for appeal.
|
|||||
| Glymp v. Wal-Mart, Inc., CA99-1452,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, October 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The requested discovery regarding prior accidents in a products liability action was relevant, and given the trial court's grant of appellants' request for discovery, summary judgment should not have been granted.
|
|||||
| Goodrich v. State, CA 00-151,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, October 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Adjudication of delinquency was affirmed, when mother, who along with her daughter was found to be dependent and neglected, took her daughter out of State, interfering with the child's custody, which rested with the State.
|
|||||
| Kennedy v. State, CA CR 99-1087,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, October 11, 2000, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The eyewitness statement to police at the scene of the assault was admissible at trial for impeachment of the eyewitness as an inconsistent out-of-court statement.
|
|||||
| Reed v. State, CACR 00-371,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, October 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly refused to declare mistrial based on prosecutor's comments during closing arguments; comments were not on defendant's post-arrest silence, but on defendant's opportunity to observe prosecution witnesses and tailor testimony.
|
|||||
| Rye v. State, CACR00-90,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, October 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was substantial evidence to support appellant's convictions for delivery of methamphetamine and the trial court had not abused its discretion, judgment was affirmed.
|
|||||
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. |
