Case law

MacKey v. McDonald

255 Ark. 978 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 4, 1974

The appropriation was not made to or for the benefit of the county judge but clearly was placed as an item under the general heading “County Court.” … In order to qualify for funds under the act, a unit of local government must show that it will establish a trust fund in which it will deposit all payments it receives and use the fund only for the prescribed priority expenditures

Walker v. State

304 Ark. 393 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 28, 1991

Oral statements and argument by counsel do not qualify as evidence for purposes of the trial court's finding. The criminal information does qualify as evidence to be considered by the trial judge. … The case was one in which murder was charged, and thus the burden of proof was clearly established by the statute.

Talley v. State

377 S.W.3d 222 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 30, 2010

Talley contends that the State did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the DNA evidence inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means. … The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony because the statements made by the victim qualify as excited-utterances under the five-factor test used in Rodriguez v.

Berry v. State

290 Ark. 223 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 1986

removal shall be by petition setting forth the facts on account of which the removal is requested; and the truth of the allegations in such petition shall be supported by the affidavits of two [2] credible persons who are qualified … “A change of venue should be granted only when it is clearly shown that a fair trial is likely not to be had in the county.” Kirkendall v. State, 265 Ark. 853 , 581 S.W.2d 341 (1979).

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

Stautzenberger v. Stautzenberger

427 S.W.3d 17 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 11, 2013

Even at first blush, it would appear that at least some of these expenditures might qualify as reasonable expenditures for Ms. Osborne’s care, maintenance, or education. … A probate court can approve the expenditures even after they have been made if the guardian can establish to the satisfaction of the probate court that such expenditures were reasonable and proper and were actually expended

Little v. State

261 Ark. 859 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 27, 1977

Ed. 1179 ); and that this evidence must clearly establish that one aged 13 understood the nature and consequences of the offense charged, Garner v. State, 97 Ark. 63 , 132 S.W. 1010 , Ann. Cas. 1912C 1059. … As appellant points out, the common law presumption that one under 14 but over 13 years of age does not have the capacity to commit a crime is rebuttable, and the burden is on the prosecution to clearly establish his capability

Bates Coal Mining Company v. Mannon

205 Ark. 215 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 8, 1943

The evidence clearly established that neither Bedwell nor Baines had assets of any substantial character, although they had sworn, in qualifying for the payroll bond, that they were worth $7,500. … After reciting the circumstances established by the evidence this court, in its opinion, said: “In other words, we think the arrangement just a method of operating the coal mine by appellant (Laser) himself.”

Cardiac Thoracic & Vascular Surgery, P.A. Profit Sharing Trust v. Bond

310 Ark. 798 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 2, 1992

Patrick and Earl Bond; that there was insufficient evidence to establish any relationship between Dr. … Patrick’s investment actually was made by his qualified profit sharing trust.

Rossi v. Rossi

319 Ark. 373 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 6, 1995

COUNSEL: So, you are well qualified to give an opinion as to the custom and practice or to testify as to the custom and practice in the Circuit Clerk’s Office? INMON: Yes. COUNSEL: Okay. … The notice should immediately have been transferred to chancery court in accordance with the established practice testified to by Ms. Inmon.

Advance America Servicing of Arkansas, Inc. v. McGinnis

300 S.W.3d 487 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 19, 2009

We hold that the first element of the adequacy requirement has been established. … This finding is not clearly erroneous.

Neal v. State

497 S.W.3d 666 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 30, 2016

In holding that Tornavacca’s due-process claim qualified as an issue that may be raised in a Rule 37 proceeding, we explained, Moreover, “for many years, Arkansas has allowed collateral attacks upon a final conviction and … Further, the Drug Court Act authorizes the establishment of a drug-court program in each judicial district.

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. White

302 Ark. 193 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 30, 1990

Must the trial court in every case go beyond its general admonition in qualifying the panel and spell out what might specifically constitute improper conduct? … I am convinced that the appellant met its burden and clearly established that a reasonable possibility of prejudice resulted from juror misconduct.

Holland v. Ratliff

238 Ark. 819 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 21, 1964

The instruction was generally and specifically objected to, the specific objection contending that there was no testimony to establish permanency of the injury, or length of duration; that the evidence was insufficient to … And it was, therefore, competent here to show what appellee’s duties were in connection with his business; what his qualifications were for discharging those duties; what the services of one similarly qualified would have

Eric Reid v. State of Arkansas

2019 Ark. 363 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 5, 2019

Accordingly, we will not reverse voir dire restrictions unless that discretion is clearly abused. Gay v. State, 2016 Ark. 433, at 5, 506 S.W.3d 851, 856. … Reid’s objection, the State was allowed to “death qualify” the jury. However, Mr.

Kaufman & Co. v. Stone

25 Ark. 336 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 15, 1869

That the said James Graham is not a commissioner of deeds, duly appointed, commissioned and qualified by the Governor of Arkansas, according to the statute in such case made and provided. 2. … Our statute of frauds makes use of the words “ accept” and“ actually received;” thereby clearly showing that the law-makers had in contemplation the performance of-two acts; and an instruction that would' have a tendency

Green v. Alpharma, Inc.

373 Ark. 378 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 8, 2008

O’Connor was well-credentialed and qualified. … O’Connor was well-qualified. The issue here is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in finding that Dr.

Housley v. Housley

238 Ark. 269 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 1964

words, unless they show testator intention to create a trust as clearly as though he had created it by express words.” … No one can say that the language depended on here to establish a trust is not doubtful. In Ross v. Ross, 135 Ind. 367 , 35 N.

Landers v. Stone

496 S.W.3d 370 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 2016

In Dennis and Proctor, the statutes prohibited persons who were qualified under the constitution from being elected to, and serving in, judicial office. … Likewise, in Allred, the law barred a constitutionally qualified incumbent from running for office, and in Green, the statute banned a qualified person from serving as 8

Ingram v. Raiford

174 Ark. 1127 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 17, 1927

Harris was duly elected and duly qualified as provided by law. … The trial court was clearly correct in holding that the decree of March 6, 1926, was res judicata.