 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Claiborne v. State, CACR03-1108,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 16, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a criminal appeal, the court would not review defendant's argument that the trial judge erred in allowing the introduction of a "sex offender risk assessment;" his argument on appeal did not comport with his objection at trial.
|
|||||
| Eades v. Eades, CA03-371,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 16, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not error for the trial court to find the wife in contempt of court for violating an earlier order about custody, because there was evidence that the wife did not refrain from discussing the custody situation with the child.
|
|||||
| Gibson v. Gibson, CA 03-757,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE, TWO AND THREE, June 16, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly accepted wife's explanation that request for admissions were not timely answered as she did not receive them at time other papers were served. Finding that boyfriend was not a member of wife's household was not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Greene v. Logue, CA 03-1027,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 16, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly found that the decedent possessed the mental capacity to exercise reasonable judgment; therefore, the conveyance of her property to the beneficiary was not in error and the deed was not set aside.
|
|||||
| Kimbrell v. State, CACR 03-1022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 16, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm was affirmed, because defendant had not properly preserved the issue challenging sufficiency of the evidence by filing a motion for a directed verdict before the trial court.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. Lewis, CA 03-1168,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND TWO, June 16, 2004, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Matter was remanded to trial court for consideration of the husband's asserted defenses of laches and estoppel, because they were potentially applicable to the wife's claim for retirement benefits asserted seven years after the divorce issued.
|
|||||
| McLelland v. McLelland, CA03-1128,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 16, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property division by trial court should have been determined independent of spousal support. The trial court erred by making an unequal distribution of the marital property without specifying the reasons as required by statute.
|
|||||
| Michael v. Keep & Teach, Inc., CA 03-978,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISIONS ONE AND FOUR, June 16, 2004, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission's decision to deny the worker's impairment rating claim was based on an incorrect application of the statute; additional findings of fact, conclusions of law, and other proceedings were necessary.
|
|||||
| Mokol v. State, CACR03-909,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 16, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was precluded from arguing on appeal issue of drug's weight, because he failed to raise the issue at trial. Failure of State to include a particular weight was not error, as defendant's sentence was within range of sentences set forth.
|
|||||
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. |
