Case law

Carroll Ex Rel. Johnson v. Johnson

263 Ark. 280 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 24, 1978

by the Texas court was not mandated by Armstrong, and the Texas court’s result was based not only on that case but upon a reading of the Texas constitution’s due process clause, the words of which protect privileges and immunities … Clearly the freedom to marry accorded due process protection is basically a personal right. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , 87 S. Ct. 1817 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967).

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.

Chastain v. City of Little Rock

208 Ark. 142 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 5, 1945

1052 , said: “It was the intent to make the procedure in municipal legislation as nearly as practicable the same as the initiative and referendum procedure for measures relating to the people of the state at large—showing clearly … It is an established rule of statutory construction that such meaning is to be given to the language of the lawmakers as will effectuate the object and purpose of the law. ...

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.

Little Rock & Napoleon Railroad v. Little Rock, Mississippi River & Texas Railroad

36 Ark. 663 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1880

Penzel, citizens and residents of the state, to qualify them to become directors; and so, though not citizens and residents themselves of the state, in fraud of the law, to organize themselves as a corporation. … The appellee company was clearly entitled to the injunction granted by the decree. The decree is affirmed.

Farris v. Stone County School District No. 1

248 Ark. 19 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 1970

It is also clearly shown that the full board never considered the matter until May 31. On that date appellant appeared and asked the board to pay her for the time she had lost. … Appellee argues that the evidence established jury questions as to (1) appellant’s misconduct, (2) whether appellant had a valid teacher’s license, and (3) whether the board did in fact meet and discharge appellant.

Valley v. Bogard

342 Ark. 336 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 12, 2000

On May 4, 2000, the trial court entered an order finding that Valley was not qualified to run for the office of State Representative, District 99. … The trial court clearly believed the testimony of Blake Travis over that of Valley and concluded that Valley had refused service. It is up to the trial court to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Kelly v.

Penn v. Tollison

26 Ark. 545 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 15, 1871

The officers, elected under the Constitution of 1836, qualified and entered upon the discharge of the duties prescribed by the Constitution of 1861. … Filkins, “If the Convention of 1864 had power to declare the Constitution of 1861, void, ab initio, most clearly that of 1861 had’ a like power to declare that of 1886 void.”

Brodie v. Skelton

6 Ark. 120 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1850

That fact, clearly established, would not. authorize the decree rendered against him. unless it also appeared that Pulliam had notice also. Pulliam was not charged with notice, nor was he made a defendant. … From every view that we have been able to take of this case, we are clearly of opinion that the decree ought to be reversed and set aside.

Courteau v. Dodd

299 Ark. 380 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 3, 1989

Govar been able to qualify as an expert in that field, his testimony might have been sufficient to present a fact question. … Govar was qualified to express an opinion about how Dr. Dodd should have reacted to the July 6 X-ray, given the instructions in the July 5 requisition.

Howard v. State

72 Ark. 586 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1904

No rule of criminal procedure is better established, perhaps, than that evidence of one crime shall not be permitted in proof of another. … We think all this is clearly inferable from the evidence concerning the John Gatlin scrip.

Cunningham v. Ashley

7 Ark. 296 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1851

And we have seen that nothing can be presumed in favor of the complainant on this question, and consequently, that whatever may restrict or qualify this determination of the Register and Receiver, or establish it in any way … This concurring testimony, unopposed as it is by any facts or circumstances in proof, in any material degree inconsistent with such a conclusion, establishes very clearly, as we think, the unqualified rejection of the complainant

Hobbs v. McGehee

458 S.W.3d 707 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 19, 2015

RThe ADC also pleaded affirmative defenses of sovereign and qualified immunity and failure to state facts upon which relief could be granted. … Although we acknowledged the well-established rule that a sentence must be in accordance with the statutes in effect on the date of the crime, see State v.

Ford Motor Co. v. Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission

357 Ark. 125 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 29, 2004

Peterson also explained that just because a candidate has a dealership that is Blue Oval certified does not mean that the dealer will qualify for another dealership. … Cumberlich also stated that just because a dealer was performing at a level that did not warrant termination does not mean that they automatically qualify for an additional dealership.

Stewart v. State

221 Ark. 496 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 19, 1953

These signs faced east, so that they were clearly visible to approaching trainmen. … Unless pickets could present their message to persons arriving by train such a mill would be immune from the usual means of advertising the existence of a strike. * * In an effort to show that the appellee's purpose is illegal

Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Bushey

180 Ark. 19 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 7, 1929

judgment because five of the jurors who tried the case had not assessed for the payment of a poll tax, although each had paid same, and because all answered upon their voir dire, at the commencement of the term, that they were qualified … There was no necessity of negativing such elements of damages, because they were clearly excluded by necessary implication in the instruction given.

Davis v. State

345 Ark. 161 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 31, 2001

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court’s decision denying Rule 37 relief on this argument was not clearly erroneous. II. … Huggins’s co-counsel, Charles Duell, was qualified to represent defendants in death-penalty cases. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on this point. V.

Arkansas Gas Consumers, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission

354 Ark. 37 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 18, 2003

Regardless of these distinctions, in 1997, the PSC clearly recognized by virtue of Order No. 17 that its authority was limited as far as establishing a low-income assistance program. … The addition of a new power in the PSC is clearly a change in the law.

Bailey v. McCuen

318 Ark. 277 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 14, 1994

It is not at all comparable to a finding of fact by a trial court, which we will set aside only if it is clearly erroneous. ARCP Rule 52(a). 296 Ark. at 519 , 758 S.W.2d at 406 . … Remedial Purpose: All workers’ compensation laws, whether established by constitution or statute, shall be liberally construed by any adjudicator in accordance with the remedial purpose of a workers’ compensation system.

James v. Pulaski County Circuit Court, Fifth Division

439 S.W.3d 19 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 26, 2014

The Supreme Court of the United States has clearly set out the distinction between the types of relief: ... … as to those witnesses at the time of the occurrence or for the purpose of establishing their character.