Case law

White v. State

367 Ark. 595 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 14, 2006

Here, this evidence of appellant’s arousal while watching his girls perform a dance routine demonstrates a “particular proclivity” toward young girls, particularly his two daughters, thereby establishing the “intimate relationship … Whether a witness qualifies as an expert in a particular field is a matter within the trial court’s discretion, and we will not reverse such a decision absent an abuse of that discretion. Jackson v.

State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. Irby

190 Ark. 786 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 8, 1935

He is then clearly within the meaning of the Constitution, and consequently ineligible to any office of profit or trust. … W. 506 , we expressly conceded that a notary public was a public office, but denied the privilege of holding such office to women because they were not then qualified as such to hold public office.

Reserve Vault Corp. v. Jones

234 Ark. 1011 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 16, 1962

This litigation involves the validity of Act 78 of 1961, entitled, “An Act Relating to Prepaid Funeral Expenses; Requiring Registration of Organizations Dealing Therein and Requir-ing the Establishment of Trusts for the Benefit … It is a qualified right and the State may, in its legitimate exercise of the police power, pass laws which limit or affect the right of contract so long as those regulations are reasonably necessary to secure the health,

Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Leslie

112 Ark. 305 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 6, 1914

The law is well settled that where there are no eye-witnesses to the injury and the cause thereof is not established by affirmative or direct proof, then all the facts established by the circumstances must be such as to justify … Here, under the above ruling, the testimony, to say the least, was clearly incompetent in the right of action for the loss of contributions.

Forrest City Grocer Co. v. Catlin

193 Ark. 148 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 9, 1936

Hall operated the Burnt Cane farm and the commissary thereon; but we think the testimony clearly established the fact that he operated both the store and the commissary and all the farms. … That appears to be established by the undisputed testimony, but our conclusion, in relation thereto, is that this was a part of the indebtedness which Mr.

Seaman Store Company v. Bonner

195 Ark. 563 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 7, 1938

W. 153 , Justice Ridoick, speaking, for an undivided court, said: "The rule established in this court is that, even where there may be some conflict in the evidence, a new trial will be granted where the verdict is so clearly … Only one of the doctors called by either side qualified as,a nerve and brain expert, all others were general practitioners.

Mason v. Jackson

194 Ark. 236 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 14, 1937

Words of grant were used which were sufficient,' in the absence of qualifying words, to convey an estate in fee simple, and the habendum contained a proviso attempting to limit the estate to one only for life. … Thus, where the habendu-m is clearly repugnant to the premises, the habendum must give way to the premises.

Hill v. State

289 Ark. 387 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 7, 1986

We make an independent determination of this issue considering the totality of the circumstances and affirm the trial court unless we can say the lower court was clearly wrong. Williamson v. … He first argues that error was committed because the jury was death qualified. This court has repeatedly held that this practice is constitutional, Rector v. State, 280 Ark. 385 , 659 S.W.2d 168 (1983); Novak v.

Stewart v. State

257 Ark. 753 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 3, 1975

Ann. § 42-611, el seq, establishes the office of state medical examiner and prescribes the duties and the stringent qualification required of that individual. … A careful reading of Chap. 23-4 shows clearly that it does not apply to matters affecting the admissibility of evidence.

First Commercial Bank, N.A. v. Kremer

292 Ark. 82 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 27, 1987

There clearly was a question for the jury whether the appellant had a reasonable belief that the appellee knowingly executed the affidavit falsely with respect to whether she received a benefit from ARI in exchange for the … Garvan and Malvern relied on the advice of competent and qualified counsel.

Garrett v. Faubus

230 Ark. 445 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 27, 1959

This section, in substance, says: (a) All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens; (b) No state shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges or immunities … In the exercise of the police power the Legislature, has a large discretion, and it is our duty to sustain such legislation unless it is clearly and palpable and beyond all question in violation of the constitution.”

Saine v. Comcast Cablevision of Arkansas, Inc.

354 Ark. 492 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 23, 2003

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. Flentje v. … However, this case is clearly distinguishable from Porter v.

Clemmons v. Office of Child Support Enforcement

345 Ark. 330 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 21, 2001

Therefore, we do not find that the chancellor was clearly erroneous in granting the entire amount of child-support arrearage of $20,775. … As such, those statements do not qualify for recognition under the law-of-the-case doctrine. In Green v.

Clinical Study Centers, Inc. v. Boellner

411 S.W.3d 695 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 14, 2012

The doctrine provides that a decision of an appellate court establishes the law of the case for the trial upon remand and for the appellate court itself upon subsequent review. Id. … A statute passed by the General Assembly will always be upheld, unless it is clearly prohibited by the constitution. Id. Courts must assume that legislative discretion has been properly exercised. Id.

Tornavacca v. State

408 S.W.3d 727 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 24, 2012

Thus, we hold that appellant’s due-process claim qualifies as an issue that may be raised in a Rule 37 proceeding. … The circuit court’s finding is not clearly erroneous.

Damien Echols v. State of Arkansas

2024 Ark. 61 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 18, 2024

Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-202 states that, in order to file a motion for testing that may qualify for relief under Act 1780, a petitioner who requests relief and who seeks scientific testing to provide the … This court does not reverse a denial of postconviction relief unless the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous. McArty, 2020 Ark. 68, at 2, 594 S.W.3d at 56.

Christopher Coy Gamble v. State of Arkansas

2026 Ark. 44 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 5, 2026

The issue of whether the arrest is unreasonable is clearly before us. … Persons comprising the venire are presumed to be unbiased and qualified to serve. Goins v. State, 318 Ark. 689, 701, 890 S.W.2d 602, 608 (1995).

Mid-State Construction Co. v. Second Injury Fund

295 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 14, 1988

Section ll-9-525(a)(l) and (2) provides that the Fund is established and designed to insure that an employer employing a handicapped worker will not, in the event such worker suffers an injury on the job, be held liable for … To hold otherwise would result in the unfounded and unintended situation that Second Injury Fund liability is denied in a case where a potential employee suffers from an impairment such as loss of one eye which would clearly

White v. State

330 Ark. 813 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 18, 1997

Though this is the first time that we have confronted this precise issue, we conclude that the trial court’s finding of sufficient evidence of prior guilt in this case for habitual-offender purposes was not clearly erroneous … White contends that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury to disregard the statement constitutes reversible error because the witness was not qualified to give an opinion on his mental state. We disagree.

Arrington v. United Royalty Co.

188 Ark. 270 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 27, 1933

Valentine, supra, decided by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, held that an ordinary oil and gas lease permitting the lessee to prospect for oil and gas establishes a mere chattel interest and hot within any rule … Biddle, 8 Wheat. 76 , the following-statement is found: “We are clearly of the opinion that the grant of one-half of the royalties, rents and income from the oil is a grant of one-half of the oil in place. ’ ’ This rule seems