Case law

Noel v. State

331 Ark. 79 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1998

In short, there was only one objection made that conceivably might have qualified as improper character evidence, and that related to Curtis Cochran’s fear due to Noel’s “reputation.” … In Kemp, we further observed that the appellant’s argument was that the victim-impact statute conflicted with the statutes establishing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Steptoe v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

119 Ark. 75 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 31, 1915

The plaintiff objected to the instructions and also asked the court to modify the same by adding words which qualified them so as to make them conform to the instructions requested by plaintiff, but the court refused the … The language of the instruction contradicts the whole theory upon which the case should have been tried, 'and it was clearly erroneous.

Ark. State Highway Commission v. Fox

230 Ark. 287 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 9, 1959

Adams, a well-qualified appraiser who had been familiar with the property for a number of years. Mr. Adams testified that the damage to the land and improvements was $20,350. … Now, the question and answer above copied clearly show that the witness, John Q. Adams, based his figures on the "market value of the property involved before and after the taking".

Williams Manufacturing Co. v. Walker

206 Ark. 392 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 29, 1943

But, even if it was not established that appellee specifically advised Dr. ICelley of the existence of the hernia within the forty-eight hour period, this would not be sufficient to justify a denial of appellee’s claim. … Since he suffered an accidental injury in the course of his employment and it clearly appears that he did all that could be reasonably expected of a workman in the way of reporting his injury promptly and submitting himself

City of North Little Rock v. Pulaski County

332 Ark. 578 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 16, 1998

The circuit court further determined that because Act 438 established that certain airport property was per se exempt as being used exclusively for public purposes under Ark. … Statutes will not be struck down unless they conflict with the constitution “clearly and unmistakably.” Id., citing Board of Trustees of Municipal Judges and Clerks Fund, City of Little Rock v.

Palmer v. Taylor

168 Ark. 127 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 2, 1925

We do not construe the language quoted as giving the trustees the right to convert or otherwise misappropriate the assets of the concern or to‘ have immunity from accounting therefor. … Summarizing this testimony, we have concluded, after carefully considering it, that the testimony does not establish the contention of appellants that the-project was a fraudulent one.

Stoddard v. State

169 Ark. 594 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 26, 1925

The fact that deceased had made indecent proposals to appellant’s wife could not be established by hearsay testimony, and the offered testimony was purely hearsay. … This qualified them to testify on the subject.

Bethany v. Jones

378 S.W.3d 731 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 17, 2011

Linder also clearly rejected a compartmental view of fitness — such that a parent could be fit for every other decision regarding a child but be unfit for decisions concerning with whom the child associates. … Bishop, 290 Ark. 424 , 720 S.W.2d 299 (1986) (parent or person acting in loco parentis is immune from suit for an unintentional injury to his child but not for an intentional injury to that child); Thomas v.

Stull v. Ragsdale

273 Ark. 277 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 6, 1981

Appellee contends there were 8 of these jurors qualified in this case, and he used all of his peremptory challenges to remove as many as possible but 4 remained. He states he then moved for a mistrial in chambers. … This testimony was clearly improper and cannot be considered.

Donald Caple v. State of Arkansas

609 S.W.3d 630 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 22, 2020

In this case, based on L.H.’s testimony, the hand, mouth, and penis contact establishes the necessary degree of penetration. … Here, we note that Caple did not object at trial that McBain’s testimony was unduly prejudicial because McBain was not a qualified expert.

Scott, White & Co. v. Henry

8 Ark. 112 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1852

It is a well established rule that affirmative matter in avoidance of the allegations in the bill, must be established by evidence independent of the answer, which cannot be used for that purpose. … Wilson, nor any other parol evidence, can be admitted to vary or qualify the terms.

American Abstract and Title Co. v. Rice

358 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 17, 2004

On December 18,1978, this court issued a per curiam opinion whereby it established the Supreme Court Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. … Without this ability to enforce its own rules, the Committee clearly cannot be vested with exclusive jurisdiction to consider allegations that a person or entity has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Prater v. Frazier

6 Ark. 249 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1850

The proposition here laid down is too broad, and should have been so qualified as to have opened up the question of constructive delivery. … The second was most clearly right.

Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. State

432 S.W.3d 563 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 20, 2014

Patients with an established diagnosis of diabetes mellitus who are started on atypical antipsychotics should be monitored regularly for worsening of glucose control. … They clearly fall within the Rule 803(8) exception and do not fall within any of the five exclusions to that rule.” Omni Holding, 356 Ark. 440, 459 , 156 S.W.3d 228, 242 (2004).

Smith v. State

343 Ark. 552 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 1, 2001

It is for the trial court to decide whether a juror is qualified, and that finding will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Id. … The trial court clearly brought every element of section 5-4-604(4) to the jury’s attention.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Bass

461 S.W.3d 317 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 2015

court declare that they have a right to treat, as voidable, contracts for placement of surplus-lines insurance placed by. defendant brokers between April 8, 2005, and March 18, 2011, with persons who were not approved or qualified … Amorphous Nature of Appellants Although appellants address the issue of whether they established the three requirements for intervention as a matter of law as their first point on appeal, it is necessary for us to first review

Our Community, Our Dollars v. Bullock

452 S.W.3d 552 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 31, 2014

With regard to a county clerk’s certification, section 3-8-205 provides that, “[i]f it is found that thirty-eight percent (38%) of the qualified electors have signed the petition, the county clerk shall certify that finding … We hold that the circuit judge did not clearly err on this issue. Save Energy, 374 Ark. at 437 , 288 S.W.3d at 605-06 . Also, in Mays v.

Neal v. State

270 Ark. 442 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 29, 1980

The standard for balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances established by the Arkansas Legislature on March 3, 1975, should have been applied to petitioner’s sentencing hearing. 6. … We will first consider those grounds alleged which clearly afford no basis for proceeding under Rule 37. 2.

Zachary M. Oxley v. Larry Ray Lumpkins

2025 Ark. 98 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 29, 2025

In March, Oxley intervened in the Davises’ divorce, petitioning the circuit court to establish the paternity of MC1. … the natural parent and that preference must prevail unless it is established that the natural parent is unfit.”

Reams v. State

560 S.W.3d 441 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 8, 2018

Stated differently, prejudice is presumed if a fair-cross-section violation is established. … The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that a right to counsel of choice impacts every stage of the proceedings and thus qualified as a structural error.