Case law

Standard Mutual Benefit Corporation v. State

197 Ark. 333 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 12, 1938

The appellant, without entering its appearance for any other purpose, filed motion to quash service, stating that it bad never attempted to qualify to do business in Arkansas; bad no agent within the state, nor had it an … Her testimony is insufficient to establish the agency of A’Hearn.

Hilliard v. Bunker

68 Ark. 340 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 21, 1900

roll of justices of the peace, which was accordingly done, when the following-named justices answered to their names, to — wit: [here follow the names of eleven justices of the peace], and, there being a majoi’ity of the qualified … which is a part of our revenue statute, fixed the 1st Monday in October as the day for the annual meetings of the levying courts of all the counties in the state; but it is contended in argument (although the issue is not clearly

Parsons v. State

341 Ark. 150 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 27, 2000

Rather than interpreting the Act as requiring any apportionment to fit the residency scheme of the presently seated Board members, as the “so long as” language clearly required, the trial court found the Act to be ambiguous … 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. Id.

Chandler v. Martin

433 S.W.3d 884 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 2014

miscredited by the clerk’s office, and a lawyer would have no notice or any opportunity to have the mistake corrected prior to the suspension, even though the mistake was made through no fault of the attorney’s own and clearly … become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities

Chandler v. Martin

Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 2014

miscredited by the clerk’s office, and a lawyer would have no notice or any opportunity to have the mistake corrected prior to the suspension, even though the mistake was made through no fault of the attorney’s own and clearly … become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities

Esmeyer v. State

325 Ark. 491 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 16, 1996

A jury, though, is presumed to be unbiased and qualified to serve, and the burden is on the appellant to show otherwise. Cooper v. State, 324 Ark. 135 , 919 S.W.2d 205 (1996); Franklin v. … Conflicts in the testimony are for the trial court to determine and will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Higgins v. State, 317 Ark. 555 , 879 S.W.2d 424 (1994).

Andrews v. State

344 Ark. 606 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 3, 2001

Under our standard of review and the evidence before us, we cannot say that the trial court’s decision is clearly erroneous. … Jones’s testimony is clearly erroneous. Affirmed.

Lambert v. Markley

255 Ark. 851 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 24, 1973

We there held the instruction erroneous, but in doing so we neither added to nor qualified the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. … Even if we assume that the proof shows that the lock washer had been left off the wheel and that caused the wheel to become detached from the truck, that in itself would not establish negligence on the part of appellant.

Stone v. State

254 Ark. 1011 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 23, 1973

The case at bar clearly cannot be classified as a peonage statute. It is more comparable to our law making it an offense to execute an overdraft which likewise contains the presumption clause. Ark. Stat. … The qualifying language of the statute may bring it within the purview of instructions such as that approved in Selman v. State, 159 Ark. 131 , 251 S.W. 882 .

Ark. S. & L. Ass'n v. Cent. Ark. S. & L.

538 S.W.2d 505 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 28, 1976

Ten new industries and 14 new commercial establishments were opened for business in 1972. … Lynch, an eminently qualified economist, but also for the findings of the Board, which was in these respects exercising its expertise.

J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

329 Ark. 243 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 30, 1997

Clear and convincing evidence is defined as “that degree of proof which will produce in the factfinder a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established.” Id. at 637 , 839 S.W.2d at 198 . … The ADA provides in pertinent part that, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities

Bryant v. Weiss

335 Ark. 534 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 21, 1998

Our decisions have clearly stated that the intent of the Freedom of Information Act was to establish the right of the public to be fully apprised of the conduct of public business. City of Fayetteville v. … The Attorney General is a qualified elector, which requires him to be a citizen. See Ark. Const. Art. 3, § 1, and Art. 19, § 3.

Lakshminarayana Chekuri v. Madhuri Nekkalapudi

593 S.W.3d 467 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 20, 2020

The ruling was not clearly erroneous. … Accordingly, most of the “property” that the circuit court awarded did not qualify as marital property under section 9-12-315.

Pickens v. State

292 Ark. 362 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 1987

The crime for which appellant was charged, the punishment prescribed for it, and the quantity or degree of proof necessary to establish his guilt, all remain unaffected by § 41 -1358. … Neither do we find merit in appellant’s expressed attempt to preserve his argument that death-qualified juries are unconstitutional since that issue has been decided against him. Lockhart v.

Arkansas Land & Cattle Co. v. Anderson-Tully Co.

248 Ark. 495 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 13, 1970

Determination whether an expert witness is sufficiently qualified lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge. Ratton v. Busby, 230 Ark. 667 , 326 S. W. 2d 889 . … Appellees contend that they have clearly shown that the tract involved was formed by accretion to Carter Point.

Ward Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Reather

234 Ark. 151 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 13, 1961

“We, therefore, find that claimant has failed to establish his claim and that it should be denied.” … So it is established beyond question that claimant has some sort of disease of the lungs.

Adams v. State

326 S.W.3d 764 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 2009

It is for the trial court to decide whether a juror is qualified, and that finding will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. … Thus, Watson does not support the State's argument that a party must make an additional objection at the conclusion of voir dire, and the facts are clearly distinguishable.

Jegley v. Picado

349 Ark. 600 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 5, 2002

Both Poe and Babbitt involved the question of whether the plaintiffs had established a case or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the U.S. … “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.” Ark. Const. art. 2, § 18.

Cooper v. State

324 Ark. 135 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 15, 1996

The prosecution’s use of a peremptory challenge to remove the only black prospective juror may establish a prima facie case, Mitchell v. … Persons comprising the venire are presumed to be unbiased and qualified to serve. Goins v. State, 318 Ark. 689 , 890 S.W.2d 602 (1995); Franklin v. State, supra.

Green v. State

502 S.W.3d 524 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 10, 2016

Clearly, a sentence for rest of a person’s “natural life” makes no distinction from a life sentence, and Green’s contention that his sentence is illegal fails. … An allegation that an inmate passed along information about fingerprints hardly qualifies as proof of a Brady violation.