 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alexander v. State, CA CR 01-621,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 19, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of aggravated robbery and felony manslaughter as his acts and confession demonstrated his intent. The first revocation of defendant's probation resulted in an illegal sentence that he had served.
|
|||||
| Am. Std. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Post, CA 01-1333,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 19, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statutory requirements for a claimant's change of physician were met where the workers' compensation commission explicitly granted the petition based upon the condition that his family doctor later agreed to comply with the terms of the statute.
|
|||||
| Battishill v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA 01-845,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 19, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by determining parents voluntarily and intelligently waived their right to counsel in parental rights termination proceeding where they were not advised about advantages and disadvantages of pro se representation.
|
|||||
| Belz-Burrows, L.P. v. Cameron Constr. Co., CA 01-1232,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 19, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of evidence showing owner at fault, not contractor, was admissible as evidence showed that the contractor was absolved of liability. The jury instructions were similar to the owner's proffered instructions as not to cause prejudice.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, CACR01-1284,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, June 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of 18 separate crimes arising from his participation in the abduction or attempted abduction of three women, it was not error to deny defendant's motion for directed verdict, and collateral estoppel did not apply.
|
|||||
| Chatman v. State, CACR01-1037,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant had equipment and ingredients used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and witnesses testified defendant told them he was cooking the drug to sell, substantial evidence supported defendant's conviction for attempted manufacture.
|
|||||
| Culbreath v. State, CACR01-1011,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, June 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's arguments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of a felony terroristic act were not preserved for appellate review where he failed to renew his motion for dismissal at the close of all the evidence.
|
|||||
| Dupree v. Dupree, CA01-956,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A wife was not entitled to an interest in a corporation, in which her husband owned half the stock, because she did not prove that it was marital property based on the lack of evidence that marital funds were used to reduce corporate debt.
|
|||||
| Fischer v. State, CACR01-1096,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, June 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probable cause existed for the issuance of a search warrant for defendant's residence and he lacked standing to challenge the search of his co-defendant's property; thus, defendant's motions to suppress drug related evidence were properly denied.
|
|||||
| Foreman v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA 01-1175,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, June 19, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where juvenile court did not satisfy any requirements for finality, appellate court was required to dismiss mother's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
|
|||||
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. |
