Case law

Jordan v. Diamond Equipment & Supply Co.

362 Ark. 142 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 28, 2005

For example, in Dessert Seed Co., a seed distributor sent the wrong seeds to the grower but then attempted to claim immunity from suit based on an exculpatory clause contained on the seed tag. … In the instant case, Diamond has not presented evidence at this stage of the proceeding, outside the signing of the rental agreement, to establish that Jordan read and comprehended that he was signing a complete waiver of

Priest v. Polk

322 Ark. 673 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 7, 1995

Bynum, and Intervenor Steve Clark, as citizens, residents, taxpayers, and qualified voters of this state, have cross-appealed. … Both cases are clearly distinguishable due to the differences in the West Virginia, Montana, and Arkansas Constitutions.

Quattlebaum v. Davis

265 Ark. 588 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 1979

for that purpose, said board shall be vested and charged with all the powers and duties with which such board is vested and charged when meeting in regular session and, in addition, said board shall be empowered to employ qualified … The reasons set forth in the testimony of the county judge clearly establish the court was acting within its discretion in refusing to call a special election on his own volition.

Jenkins v. Bogard

335 Ark. 334 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 10, 1998

Jenkins and the State Republican Committee have clearly stressed the importance of having the issues presented here decided for the benefit of orderly procedures for challenging the appearances of names on the ballot in future … Despite the mootness of the issue, we choose to decide two issues we consider to be significant, i.e., the issue concerning the effect of a violation of Rule 78(d) and the issue concerning that which is necessary to establish

Pender v. McKee

266 Ark. 18 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 1979

That person clearly need not be both lawfully entitled to custody and lawfully empowered to consent. … The McKees testified that they were qualified as foster parents in California as well as in Arkansas.

Rodgers v. CWR Construction, Inc.

343 Ark. 126 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 14, 2000

Yates, a qualified expert, testified that the failure to wear a hard hat would not have made a difference in Rodgers’s spinal injuries. … Appellants insist that the record clearly reveals that the appellee was in physical possession and control of the pipe, clamp, and bolt involved in the accident and of certain pre-demolition safety reports.

Buckley v. State

341 Ark. 864 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 7, 2000

Buckley then renewed his motion for directed verdict, arguing again that the evidence failed to establish a connection to his client and that the State failed to meet its burden of proof. … First, Buckley cannot now argue that the alternate was not qualified when he did not object to the alternate’s presence on the jury.

Home Life Insurance Co. v. Arnold

196 Ark. 1046 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 7, 1938

He then sued the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland as a surety upon the qualifying bond of the Inter Southern Life Insurance Company. … We think the un- . disputed facts, coupled with the conduct of all the parties clearly evidenced the intention of a novation, and this is further established by long and complete acquiescence in all that was done, and that

Palmer v. Arkansas Council on Economic Education

344 Ark. 461 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 19, 2001

Because the Council did not have the requisite number of employees to qualify as an employer under the first part of the definition, the court then determined whether the Council qualified as "an agency or instrumentality … In short, Palmer's suit in the federal courts is clearly not identical to the one Palmer now brings in the state courts involving a different act.

McDaniel v. Conlan

134 Ark. 519 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 17, 1918

Conlan at the time of his death in 1908 is not clearly against thé preponderance of the evidence. The testimony of Mrs. … Conlan was better qualified to testify concerning the intentions of her husband with reference thereto than those less intimately associated with him. She stated that he always said that it was his home.

Landers v. Jameson

355 Ark. 163 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 4, 2003

Although it is only a qualified possessory interest, it is lawful and enforceable to a very large extent. Id. at 362 (emphasis added) (quoting Snethen, 664 P.2d at 381 ). … This clearly satisfies the constitutional requirement of due process.

Harrell v. Hill

19 Ark. 102 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1857

of parol evidence to establish fraud, going to the consideration or execution of deeds. … as the certificate of Hutchins clearly establishes. But this is not all. We have it from the the testimony of Mr.

Mississippi River Transmission Corp. v. Weiss

347 Ark. 543 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 7, 2002

It is likewise settled that transportation by ferry from one state to another is interstate commerce and immune from the interference of such state legislation. … Without establishing a clear test, the Court went on to hold that Kentucky could not impose the tax on ferryboat gasoline, because the tax would discourage interstate transportation.

Sebastian Cty. Eq. Bd. v. W. Ark. Coun.

296 Ark. 207 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 11, 1988

The Center's acceptance and treatment of those who are unable to pay is further established by the Center's subsidizing of a majority of its clients, as noted below. … We cannot say the trial court's finding that the Center's property is exempt was clearly erroneous and the judgment is affirmed.

James Winfield Wyatt v. Tyray Carr; Pulaski County Board of Election Commissioners; And John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State

592 S.W.3d 656 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 23, 2020

Thus, we cannot 11 say that the circuit court clearly erred in its determination that Carr established by a preponderance of the evidence that Wyatt had pleaded guilty to and … The 2005 entry is necessarily a second-hand allusion to extraneous information and certainly does not qualify as a judgment or court order.

In Re Crossley

310 Ark. 435 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 21, 1992

In Arkansas, we review bar admission and reinstatement cases de novo and will not reverse the findings of fact of the Law Examiners unless they are clearly erroneous. … What then must Crossley show to establish rehabilitation? Certainly, an extended passage of time during which sobriety has been attained is a critical factor.

Kent Parris v. State of Arkansas

2026 Ark. 57 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 29, 2026

We held that circumstantial evidence can establish that a defendant did have constructive possession. Suspects will sometimes flee and attempt to rid themselves of evidence of their crime. … Second, while Parris clearly preserved his hearsay argument, when the State claimed that the Rule 803(6) exception applied, Parris did not specifically challenge whether the State had laid a proper foundation for that exception

Scroggins v. State

312 Ark. 106 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 22, 1993

By applying the Scott and Johnson analysis to the facts at hand, we hold that Cains’ testimony was clearly admissible. … Code Ann. § 50-64-401 (a)(l)(i) (Supp. 1991) clearly provides that the punishment is to be determined by the aggregate weight of the drugs “including adulterants or diluents”.

Miller v. State

280 Ark. 551 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 14, 1983

It is argued that these remarks by the judge were prejudicial and clearly indicated to the jury that the court felt Miller was guilty. … An objection was made to the so-called death qualified jury, which we have ruled on several times, and uniformly rejected, Rector v. State, 280 Ark. 385 , 659 S.W.2d 168 (1983); Simmons v.

Samantha Edwards, Individually and as Special Administratrix of the Estate of William Bobby Wray Edwards, and Arleigh Grayce Edwards, Deceased; And as Parent and Next Friend for Peyton Hale, a Minor v. Eric James Cornell Thomas and McElroy Truck Lines, Inc.

625 S.W.3d 226 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 17, 2021

The policy merits are not for this Court to decide, but practical immunity is a matter of substantive law and public policy. Ray & Sons Masonry Contrs., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. … Code Ann. § 4-2-724 (when prevailing price or value of goods regularly bought and sold in any established commodity market is in issue, reports in official publications or trade journals or in newspapers or periodicals of