 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ballard v. Garrett, 01-1218,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 20, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In class action suit, where dissatisfied class members sat on their rights and delayed filing their motion to intervene until after a conditional settlement was preliminarily approved, the trial court properly dismissed the motion as untimely.
|
|||||
| Honeycutt v. Fanning, 01-975,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 20, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Victim's motion to enlarge time for service was timely filed where courthouse was closed by direction of the county judge on the day the motion was due and was duly filed the next business day the courthouse opened.
|
|||||
| Hudspeth v. State, CR 01-1222,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 20, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because contents of surveillance videotape had no connection with issuance of search warrant in drug bust case, evidence seized pursuant to warrant was not "fruit of the poisonous tree." Motion to suppress was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, CR 01-1312,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 20, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where employees identified defendant from a lineup, identified defendant's clothing and the gun, and accomplice identified the gun as his sister's gun and testified he waited while defendant robbed the store, accomplice's testimony was corroborated.
|
|||||
| Keenom v. State, CR 01-673,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 20, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was suppressed where officers violated the "knock and talk" procedure by ignoring defendant's request that they leave, by denying partially clothed defendant the opportunity to return to his house, and questioning defendant up to 45 minutes.
|
|||||
| Money Place, LLC v. Barnes, 01-1361,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 20, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where individual asserted lender violated usury laws by charging interest up to 750 percent per annum, because there was no mutuality in the arbitration provision, the arbitration provision was not subject to enforcement under any arbitration act.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Wharton, 01-1045,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 20, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statutory formalities specifically required testatrix who signed by mark to have a witness who signed the document attesting to her mark. Further, two attesting witnesses had to sign at end of the instrument to constitute a validly executed will.
|
|||||
| State v. Hulum, CR 01-1271,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Issues raised by the State concerning a manslaughter instruction involved a mixed question of law and fact, not an interpretation of the statute; the appeal did not involve the correct administration of the criminal law and was not reviewable.
|
|||||
| Tay-Tay, Inc. v. Young, 01-1355,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, June 20, 2002, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of check cashers' motion to compel arbitration in customers' class suit over check cashing service and fee agreements was affirmed. Arbitration provision was unenforceable for lack of mutuality.
|
|||||
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. |
