Case law

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Evans

254 Ark. 762 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1973

When I reached the whistle board as I approached this crossing I turned the bell on at the crossing board signal and started blowing the standard crossing whistle.” … In Baldwin v.

Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Hollenbeck

72 Ark. 44 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 12, 1903

Woodruff v. State, 7 Ark. 333 ; Menifee v. Ball, 7 Ark. 520 ; Houston v. Brown, 23 Ark. 333 ; Collier v. Dyer, 27 Ark. 478 . It is objected by the appellee that this question was not raised in the pleadings. … Lemay v. Johnson, 35 Ark. 225 .

City of Fayetteville v. Phillips

320 Ark. 540 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 22, 1995

City of Fayetteville v. Phillips, 306 Ark. 87 , 811 S.W.2d 308 (1991). Appellants subsequently applied for an exemption for the tax year beginning January 1, 1992. The County Equalization Board denied the exemption. … Appellants appealed to the county court, and that court reversed the Board’s ruling.

Browne & Billings v. Rouse & Hely Construction Co.

159 Ark. 677 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 9, 1923

ft.) foot concrete pavement with four (4 ft.) foot gravel shoulders on either side is to be constructed from the termination of the twenty-six (26 ft.) foot pavement, and that it is contemplated by the engineer and the board … The proceeds that should arise from the contract were assigned to Browne & Billings, a partnership composed of E. J. Browne and R. J.

Skinner v. R.J. Griffin & Co.

313 Ark. 430 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 14, 1993

In Cates v. Brown, 278 Ark. 242, 247 , 645 S.W.2d 658, 661 (1983), we said that "conjecture and *916 speculation cannot be permitted to replace proof." … The jury could have found that he was careless in walking too close to the edge, even if the protective board referred to by McKinney had somehow been removed. On this point the case is similar to Headrick v. H.D.

USAC Leasing LLC v. Hill ‎(16-994)‎

2017 Ark. 335 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 30, 2017

Based on a recently decided court of appeals decision, Stephens Production Co. v. Bennet, 2015 Ark. … I dissent for the reasons set forth in Desoto Gathering Co., LLC v. Hill, 2017 Ark. 326. Elias, Books, Brown & Nelson, P.C., by: William K. Elias, for appellants.

Garrett v. Faubus

230 Ark. 482 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 27, 1959

On May 17, 1954 the United States Supreme Court delivered its first decision in Brown v. Board of Education ( 347 U. S. 483 , 98 L. Ed. 873 , 74 S. … But nothing can be gained, in a decision of the present case, by a further discussion of Brown v. Board of Education; because I base my views entirely on the Constitution of the State of Arkansas.

Slaughter v. State

240 Ark. 471 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 14, 1966

Turney v. State, 239 Ark. 851 , 395 S. W. 2d 1 and Brown v. State, 239 Ark. 909 , 395 S. W. 2d 344 . … There was evidence by representatives of this firm and the Arkansas State Plant Board that from their inspection of her premises there was no need for any pest control treatment.

Valley v. Bogard

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

Brown, Justice. Appellant James F. “J.F.” … Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243 , 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000); State v. Craighead County Board of Elect. Comm’ers, 300 Ark. 405 , 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989). We hold that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear this matter. II.

Hall v. Staha

314 Ark. 71 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 27, 1993

In Lynch v. Patterson, 701 P.2d 1126 (Wyo.1985), the court borrowed language from Backus v. … CORBIN and BROWN, JJ., not participating.

City Electric Street Railway Co. v. First National Exchange Bank

31 L.R.A. 535 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 8, 1896

Brown, and indorsed by them before maturity for value, and delivered to the First National Bank, and by it indorsed and delivered to the plaintiff. … Mount Sterling, etc., Co. v. Looney, 1 Metc. (Ky.) 550; Bacon v. Miss. Ins. Co., 31 Miss. 116 ; 4 Thomp. Corp. 4619; Craft v. South Boston R. Co., 150 Mass. 208 ; First Nat. Bank v. Hogan, 47 Mo. 472 ; Dabney v.

Ouachita Rr v. Circuit Ct of Union County

361 Ark. 333 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2005

It asserts that the Harbours’ counterclaim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of a federal board, the Surface Transportation Board (STB). … Co. v.

Hamburg Bank v. Jones

202 Ark. 622 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 9, 1941

Co. v. Hambright, 87 Ark. 614 , 113 S. … See, also, Joseph v. Baker, 95 Ark. 150 , 128 S. W. 864 ; Brown v. Le May, 101 Ark. 95 , 141 S. W. 759 . In Ellis v. First Nat’l Bank of Fordyce, 163 Ark. 471 , 260 S.

The Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Byrd, Adm'x.

197 Ark. 152 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 31, 1938

Trucks traveling the highway ran through this water and it was over the running boards. … In Magnolia Petroleum Company v. Saunders, 193 Ark. 1080 , 104 S.

Orvis Bros. Co. v. Oliver

197 Ark. 307 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 12, 1938

Chicago Board of Trade v. Christie Grain Stock Co., 198 U.S. 236 , 25 S.Ct. 637 , 49 L.Ed. 1031 ." The "hedging" contract there involved was enforced. … See, also, Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240 , 46 S.Ct. 492 , 70 L.Ed. 927 ; Thorn v. Browne, 257 F. 519 ; Getts v. Newburger, 272 F. 209 ; Jacobs v. Hyman, 286 F. 346 .

Bohanan v. State

336 Ark. 367 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 11, 1999

In Kemp v. … Glaze and Brown, JJ., concur.

Omega Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Maples

312 Ark. 489 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 7, 1993

Mourot v. Arkansas Board of Dispensing Opticians, 285 Ark. 128 , 685 S.W.2d 502 (1985). When a statute is ambiguous, however, effect must be given to the legislative intent. McGee v. Amorel Pub. … HAYS and BROWN, JJ., would grant rehearing.

Whipple v. Tuxworth

81 Ark. 391 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 7, 1907

It is true that it was held in Board of Improvement District No. 60 v. … Roth v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 70 Ark. 203 ; Ellis v. Clarke, 19 Ark. 421 ; Bell v. Fergus, 55 Ark. 538 ; Davis v. Brown, 94 U. S. 423 .

Pickens v. McMath, Governor

215 Ark. 332 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 23, 1949

In the case of Brown v. Bradberry, 214 Ark. 937 , 218 S. … The emergency clause of Act 5 is as definite as was that clause in Act No. 4 which was sustained in the case of Fulkerson v. Refunding Board, 201 Ark. 957 , 147 S.W. 2d, 980 .

Hicks Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

174 Ark. 587 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 27, 1927

Brown, the said Bank of Taylor was insolvent. “2. … See Bank of Hunter v. Gros, 171 Ark. 859 , 268 S. W. 1032 ; Rainwater, Bank Commissioner, v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 172 Ark. 631 , 290 S. W. 69 ; Federal Land Bank of St. Louis v.