Case law

Donley v. Donley

493 S.W.3d 762 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 9, 2016

On May 1, 2012, the circuit court ■ entered an order granting [¡¡temporary guardianship of M.B. to Kisha, finding that Temika was not a fit parent and that Kisha was qualified to serve as guardian. … A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id.

Skokos v. Skokos

332 Ark. 520 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 4, 1998

Lawson, 226 Ark. 643 , 291 S.W.2d 518 (1956), will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous, Calvin v. … The provisions of Trusts Nos. 3 and 4 were apparently the same as those established in connection with the 1992 trust. Ms.

St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. White

199 Ark. 56 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 1939

Other authorities to which attention is called in appellees’ brief are printed in the footnote. 2 Appellees rely entirely upon the well-established rule that where land is conveyed upon the express condition that it shall … an absolute conveyance, but expressed a condition subsequent, upon the happening of which the title reverted to and vested in the grantor. ” The opinion, however, as distinguished somewhat from the headnote, says: “The qualified

Hetman v. Schwade

317 S.W.3d 559 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 21, 2009

This court reviews probate proceedings de novo on the record, but it will not reverse the decision of the circuit court unless it is clearly erroneous. Seymour v. … Code Ann. § 28-65-107 (a) (Repl.2004), she notes that the probate court clearly has subject-matter over guardianship proceedings.

MARK MYERS AND JANE DOE v. AMY FECHER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF TRANSFORMATION AND SHARED SERVICES, ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE, INC.

2021 Ark. 230 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 16, 2021

Further, “we review findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard of review. Ligon v. Stewart, 369 Ark. 380, 255 S.W.3d 435 (2007). … In establishing this procedure, we explained that “even with the statutory presumption, it is still necessary to examine the facts concerning e-mails on a case-by-case basis.”

Williams v. State

369 Ark. 104 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 1, 2007

Washington’s statement that she “maybe” would consider life without parole is not good enough for her to qualify as a fair juror in a death case. … Here, the State asserts there was clearly adequate justification. We agree.

Ray & Sons Masonry Contractors, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

353 Ark. 201 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 2003

In East Poinsett, supra, this court stated that section 16-56-112 “clearly establishes a maximum five years period within which an injured party can bring suit against a person who deficiently constructs or repairs an improvement … In Okla Homer, supra, this court stated that Act 42 of 1967, establishing Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-112 , was intended to “establish limitations for ‘any’ deficiency in work arising out of a construction contract.”

Foreman v. State

321 Ark. 167 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 1995

Appellant argues Brooks was not an unavailable witness and her statement did not qualify for admission under Rule 804(b)(3) or Rule 804(b)(5). … A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offering to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

Posey v. ARKANSAS DEPT. OF HEALTH HUMAN SERV.

370 Ark. 500 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 13, 2007

Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established. Id. … He testified that his official release date from prison was in November 2007, but that he anticipated being released by March or April 2007 if he qualified for a special parole program.

Franz Ex Rel. Simmons v. State

296 Ark. 181 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 11, 1988

The cases establish that such actions may be appropriate in cases of infancy, lack of time, and incompetency. United States v. Preiser, 506 F.2d 1115 , 1126 n.8 (2d Cir. 1974). … That finding is not clearly erroneous.

Byrd v. State

317 Ark. 609 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 18, 1994

Article 2, § 7 of the Arkansas Constitution establishes the inviolate right to trial by jury in this State. … That “jury” under Article 2, § 7, means twelve persons is further evidenced by Amendment 16 to § 7 adopted in 1928, which clearly contemplated a jury of twelve people.

McNair v. Williams

28 Ark. 200 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1873

Perryman named in the act as one of the commissioners to locate the county seat of Pope county; and that none of said commissioners ever qualified or acted as such; that they never removed the county seat from Dover, nor … And it is a sound general principle in the exposition of statutes that less regard is to be paid to the words used than the policy which dictated the act. * * “ It is then an established rule of construction that an act of

Porter v. Hesselbein

235 Ark. 379 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 17, 1962

The appeal was dismissed as moot because the record clearly showed that the term of office over which the controversy arose had expired. … If the question presented for our consideration merely involved an application of this established rule, our task would be simple indeed. Unfortunately this is not the case.

Worley v. State

259 Ark. 433 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 8, 1976

The hearsay ruling by the trial court was clearly erroneous. As pointed out in Frampton v. Hartzell, 179 Cal. App. 2d 771 , 4 Cal. … In light of present business practices, the common law requirement is clearly unreasonable.

Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Arkansas Sheriff's Boys' Ranch

280 Ark. 53 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 5, 1983

The drafters of the rule were attempting to adopt a policy to encourage compromise and, at the same time, not to immunize all evidence merely because it was presented during negotiations. … They clearly decided that the need to evaluate a witness’s credibility outweighs some parts of the policy of encouraging compromise. There are two ways to construe and reconcile the third sentence with the first two.

Campbell v. Asbury Automotive, Inc.

381 S.W.3d 21 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 14, 2011

These lenders approve the customer for financing based upon the customer’s credit history and establish the interest rate and other terms upon which the customer is approved. … Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. See id.

Day v. State

306 Ark. 520 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 30, 1991

Testimony at trial established that Mr. Woodring had been asleep prior to Day’s assault and that he ran out of the house, barefoot, to escape from Day. State’s Exhibit 3 showed that Mr. … Officer Bell testified that Day appeared sober and reasonable and clearly indicated that he understood the rights read to him.

WOOTBN v. State

249 S.W.2d 964 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 16, 1952

No grounds for disqualifying any juror were *967 shown and they were therefore presumed to be qualified. … Clearly, in the circumstances, it was within the province of the jury to consider this evidence and reach its own conclusion as to the source of the blood.

Ligon v. Stewart

369 Ark. 380 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 12, 2007

State Bar of California, [citations omitted], a California court held that the attorney’s alleged mental problems, even if they had been sufficiently established, would be entitled to litde weight in mitigation of his numerous … court in that case held that the ADA did not preclude disbarment because his conduct was not causally related to his disability and, even if it were, the attorney would not be protected under the ADA because he was not a ‘qualified

Gray v. Mitchell

373 Ark. 560 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 29, 2008

In order to qualify, they contend, the payment of funds must be directly and immediately connected with the public school system. … Clearly, any expenditure that meets this requirement will be one that is “for maintenance and operation of the schools.” Ark. Const. art. 14, § 3 (as amended by Ark.