Case law

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.

Rogers v. State

257 Ark. 144 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 21, 1974

In the quest for an impartial and qualified jury, Negro and white, Protestant and Catholic, are alike subject to being challenged without cause." ". . . . … `We are not unaware that many things occur during the trial of a case to fray and irritate the nerves of the presiding judge and that he is not immune to the natural frailties of humanity, but because of his position he must

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

McCain, Labor Commissioner v. Collins

204 Ark. 521 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 15, 1942

The appellee was the qualified director of the employment security division of the department of labor of Arkansas. … The lawmakers have placed that authority in the board of control, and it would be clearly an encroachment by the courts upon the authority of another department of government to undertake to substitute the judgment of the

Williams v. State

237 Ark. 569 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 27, 1964

The information charged—and the State's evidence was designed to establish— that on the 18th of February, 1962, the four named appellants committed the crimes of burglary and grand larceny by feloniously, etc. breaking and … These decisions were sound, in that the statute in question employed the word "may", and certainly the employment of "may" clearly left the matter to the sound discretion of the trial judge.

Streett v. Roberts

258 Ark. 839 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 10, 1975

There is nothing in this record to establish any improper, ulterior or arbitrary motives on the part of the circuit judge in the actions taken by him. We cannot presume that he has acted improperly. Jones v. … established *346 and the tribunal against which it is sought is wholly without jurisdiction.

Yates v. State

303 Ark. 79 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 16, 1990

Yates's defense was based on destroying Beall's credibility and establishing the involuntariness of his confession. … These matters clearly were within the trial court's province to believe or not.

Wolford v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

331 Ark. 426 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 1998

Based on our case law, the foregoing evidence establishes an appropriate foundation that shows that Dr. Williams is familiar with the standard of practice in a locality (Warsaw) similar to Batesville. … Wolford is clearly a matter outside a person’s ordinary knowledge, and in the circumstances surrounding Mr. Wolford’s case, a jury could obviously have benefited from hearing expert testimony. If the fact that Dr.

Olney v. Gordon

240 Ark. 807 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 9, 1966

For almost three years he has been continuously engaged in litigation, first to learn the whereabouts of his child and then, having at last found his son, to establish his right to take the little boy home with him. … We hold that the chancellor was *652 wrong in his conclusion that the Oklahoma decree is valid and therefore immune to attack. The facts are best narrated in chronological sequence.

Smith v. Denton

320 Ark. 253 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 3, 1995

Smith, as Vice President for Student Affairs, clearly held the ultimate authority in disciplinary matters, he overrode the decision of the Student Judicial Board. … Although the Dixon case is credited with establishing a property right in a student's attendance at a state university, the United States Supreme Court has yet to decide that issue.

Weston v. State

366 Ark. 265 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 4, 2006

Therefore, we hold that the court’s refusal to find a Batson violation was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … the records and the two mental evaluations, including the evidence suggesting that appellant was malingering, the trial court could not conclude that he was mentally retarded, which would have required the court to “death qualify

Beverly Enterprises - Arkansas, Inc. v. Thomas

370 Ark. 310 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 21, 2007

Moreover, there are four specific elements that must be proven in order to establish a prima facie case ofjudicial estoppel. (1) a party must assume a position clearly inconsistent with a position taken in an earlier case … A class action is clearly a more efficient way of handling a case where there is a predominating, common issue to be resolved for all 489 class members.

Couch v. State

274 Ark. 29 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 5, 1981

Such an action clearly enhanced the risk of an unwarranted conviction. … I know of no reason why the court should depart from its established line of reasoning and the cases already in existence. For example, in Robinson v.

Qualls v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

266 Ark. 207 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1979

It is qualified to do, and, during the years involved, did, business in Arkansas through retail stores, catalog stores, and catalog agency stores. … Thus, the interest from the loans and advances clearly constitutes business income as defined in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 84-2055 (a).

Black & White, Inc. v. Reserve Insurance

242 Ark. 573 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 8, 1967

However, we find no ambiguity as it is quite clear that the excess policy clearly incorporated by reference all the conditions, agreements and limitations of the primary policy, which in our opinion makes the above quoted … We cannot, therefore, say as a matter of law that his failure to attend the trial in the absence of any proof or explanation as to why he so failed established a breach of the contract in this regard.

Jackson v. State

375 Ark. 321 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 8, 2009

The State responded that it had not established a pattern of racially motivated strikes, noting that of the five peremptory challenges it had exercised to that point, four of them were white venire members. … Thus, to qualify for the manslaughter instruction, there must be evidence of a provocation resulting in an extreme emotional disturbance. Id.

Smith v. MacDonald

252 Ark. 931 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 26, 1972

The appellees point out that the decedent’s signature clearly appears in his own handwriting in two places on the face of the instrument and also on the envelope in which the instrument was sealed. … All other evidence clearly indicates that when Mr.

Hornor v. Hanks

22 Ark. 572 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1861

This is clearly the law that controls demands agaiqst deceased persons, that had not become liens upon specific property, before the death of the debtor. … A creditor need not reirair to the Probate Court to have his demand passed on there, he may proceed by suit in the Circuit Court, or other court of competent jurisdiction, obtain his judgment, which wall be taken as ail established

Palmer v. State

213 Ark. 956 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 18, 1948

E. 2d 353 ) and which we think are sufficient to fill in any gaps on the record before us and to establish that this confession was not made voluntarily. … Defendant Mizell Palmer’s sentence is excessive, and he has been denied equal protection of the law and privileges and immunities of citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Gaines v. Hale

26 Ark. 168 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1870

Smith, 13 Peters, 195 , clearly show that the United States may convey the land before the Indian title has been extinguished. … Though neither Hale nor Rector have any rights which, measured by the acts of Congress, have as yet matured into a title to the land, it does not. follow that they have no privileges or immunities whatever.