Case law

Stilley v. Makris

343 Ark. 673 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 15, 2001

Our well-established rule is that an initiated ordinance that is contrary to state law on its face should not be certified for inclusion on the ballot. Stilley v. … Clearly, Mr.

City National Bank v. Wofford

189 Ark. 914 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 5, 1934

The mortgage securing said bonds has many exculpatory provisions which materially impair the rights of the holders of the bonds, and gives undue privilege and unreasonable immunities to the trustee. … In other words, the rule, as stated by the court is: ‘It is well settled that an order for discovery and inspection will never be granted unless the necessity therefor is clearly shown.’ ” And § 1396 of the same authority

City of Little Rock v. AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTHWEST, INC.

318 Ark. 616 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 14, 1994

There is no dispute about whether the Administrative Law Judge was clearly in error in determining any fact. … Clearly, it is difficult to classify this levy as a fee (and if so, what kind, e.g., franchise, license, user, occupancy, rent), or a tax.

Schuman v. State

106 Ark. 362 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 3, 1913

These instructions set out fully and clearly the law of the subjects which they discuss, in accordance with the decisions of this court in numerous cases, and upon the whole present a fair, clear and correct declaration of … The phrase, under the circumstances, and in the absence of objection thereto, would be treated as merely redundant, for the court had told the jury that the defense was complete when established by a fair preponderance of

Buckner v. Real Estate Bank

5 Ark. 536 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1844

instruments “endorsed,” upon grounds in every respect alike, as well in regard to the rights of the parties as the means of enforcing them; and thus, not only in this, but in many other respects, so change the law as to establish … , that the law merchant as qualified by the changes therein made by legislation, prescribes the principles and rules thereby made to regulate and govern such contracts, subject only to the exceptions therein specified and

Arkansas State Highway Commission v. First Pyramid Life Insurance Co. of America

265 Ark. 417 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 2, 1979

But later, the state’s sovereign immunity was extended to this commission. Arkansas State Highway Com’n. v. Dodge, 190 Ark. 131 , 77 S.W. 2d 981 . … In such a case, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, may testify by stating his opinion. Rule 702. Wesley Adams fell into this category.

Strong v. State

372 Ark. 404 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 2008

The conviction clearly falls within the ten-year time limitation imposed by Ark. R. … Young was qualified as an expert by virtue of her extensive education, training, and practice as a nurse practitioner specializing in sexual abuse of children.

Kevasia Tate v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. 186 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 20, 2025

Finally, Little’s frantic command was clearly her reaction to Tate’s threat. … The circuit court overruled the objection because the State was not trying to qualify Detective Gibbons as a video expert.

Seeco, Inc. v. Stewmon

506 S.W.3d 828 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 8, 2016

Here the commonality is established by the alleged inside dealing among the Southwestern Energy subsidiaries. … We cannot conclude that in so doing, the circuit court clearly erred.

F & G Financial Services, Inc. v. Barnes

349 Ark. 420 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 27, 2002

Rule 23 Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) establishes four prerequisites to class certification. … Appellant argues that Barnes cannot establish that there are no conflicting interest between her and other potential class members.

Arkansas State Plant Board v. Bullock

345 Ark. 373 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 28, 2001

We are mindful of the rule that expert testimony qualifies as substantial evidence unless it is shown that the opinion is without a reasonable basis. See Ozark Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Arkansas Publ. Serv. … The court wrote that there was “no question that had the prosecutor filed two informations, which was clearly within his authority, the first conviction would have been admissible for enhancement purposes irrespective of

City of Little Rock v. Alexander Apartments, LLC; Arkansas Community Organizations; Melody Branch; Carolyn Ford; Ingram Murphy; And Linda Wheeler

592 S.W.3d 224 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 16, 2020

A valid due-process claim consists of four elements: action under color of state law; a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the constitution such as property; a loss of property amounting to a deprivation; and an … Additionally, expert testimony qualifies as substantial evidence unless it is shown that the opinion is without reasonable basis. See Ozark Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Ark. Pub. Serv.

Georgia Pacific Corp. v. Larry

242 Ark. 428 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 24, 1967

The term ‘gross proceeds’ or ‘gross receipts’ shall include the value of any good, wares, merchandise, or property withdrawn or used from the established business or from the stock in trade of the established reserves for … This clearly indicates that the tax is levied only upon the gross proceeds from sales to persons.

Davis v. Kukar

235 Ark. 139 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 21, 1962

that the proximate cause of the accident was negligence of the Alice-Sidney Farms in permitting the appellant, Joe Nathan Davis, to operate the tractor on the highway when they knew or should have known that he was not a qualified … and circumstances, and all the other detailed facts which' form a part of and truly characterize the deviation, including often the real intent and purpose of the servant in making it.'’ * * * Only when the deviation is clearly

Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski

353 Ark. 470 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 5, 2003

We have stated repeatedly that we would not reverse a finding by a trial court in an equity case unless it was clearly erroneous. Con-Agra, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., supra. … “The custodial parent’s freedom to move is qualified, however, by the special obligation of custody, by the state’s interest in protecting the best interests of the child, and by the competing interest of the noncustodial

Posey v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services

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.

Garrett v. Faubus

230 Ark. 468 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 27, 1959

Our Act No. 4 is clearly for the purpose of preventing violence and bloodshed. … shall have immunity from arrest, prosecution and trial for the violation of such penal laws as the General Assembly shall provide for the willful failure and refusal to carry out the clear mandates of this Amendment; and

Sims v. Everett

113 Ark. 198 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 1914

The only testimony which it is claimed tended to establish the solvency of the principal debtor at or about the time the request was made was that of a witness who stated that he heard a conversation between Edmondson and … It is clearly against the great weight of authority, and we think it also inconsistent with other decisions of this court.

Johnson v. State

326 Ark. 430 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 28, 1996

The trial court also ruled that Ashley’s statement to Rose Cassidy qualified as an excited utterance. … “First, in conformance with the Framers’ preference for face-to-face accusation, the Sixth Amendment establishes a rule of necessity.

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Gill

352 Ark. 240 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 13, 2003

It argues that the Gills’ specific and detailed products-liability claims against Waymatic, when contrasted with the “bare allegations” of negligence against Coca-Cola, established Waymatic as the primary tortfeasor early … The Gills answer that it named both Coca-Cola and Waymatic as defendants in its complaint, and that neither party was clearly the “target defendant” in the first lawsuit so as to prejudice Coca-Cola when it was tried alone