Case law

Kerr v. Murphy

253 Ark. 92 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 25, 1972

Upon that reasoning we held that increased pensions were payable only to those beneficiaries who qualified for them after the passage of the acts. … It is our conclusion that the governing legislative intention is clearly discernible in the two sentences of Act 206 of 1959 which declared the purpose and effect of that act.

Triebsch v. Athletic Mining & Smelting Company

218 Ark. 379 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 19, 1951

That the Commission at all times was thinking in terms of occupational disease — rather than accidental injury — is clearly apparent : (1) At the first hearing before Commissioner Caperton, we find this in the record: “BY … Cull and I want to find out if he is really qualified to make such an examination.” For other cases so holding, see West’s Arkansas Digest, “Workmen’s Compensation,” Cumulative Pocket Part, § 1939.

Oliver v. State

323 Ark. 743 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 18, 1996

The implication is that he did not know that he might qualify for counsel as an indigent, and the inquiry by the court would have alerted him to that fact. … It is also well established that an accused has a constitutional right to represent himself and make a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel in his defense.

North Hills Memorial Gardens v. Simpson

238 Ark. 184 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 25, 1964

He was qualified as follows: “I live in Topeka, Kansas. I am a cemetery consultant, for approximately 11 years. You do not learn this in schools, but through experience. … Clearly the board failed in its responsibility. For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.

Barclay v. First Paris Holding Co.

344 Ark. 711 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 10, 2001

We noted that: the taxpayer claiming an exemption shoulders the burden of establishing his claim. … Clearly, Arkansas law provided a different treatment for tax exemptions for subsidiary dividends.

Arkansas Gazette Co. v. Goodwin

304 Ark. 204 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 21, 1990

This is a fact of life that all who qualify as “public figures” understand and live with. … The statutory exemption clearly provides that “undisclosed” investigations are not subject to public inspection.

Arkansas Cotton Growers' Co-Operative Ass'n v. Brown

168 Ark. 504 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 13, 1925

The distinction has been clearly recognized and stated by this court and by the Supreme Court of the United States. … It is scarcely possible to devise a business plan of mathematical exactness or which affords absolute immunity from misadventure and loss, and the question of completeness of the plan is not involved in this controversy.

Beaty v. Swift

123 Ark. 166 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 27, 1916

Much, of this evidence is clearly incompetent. … Tucker, 115 Ark. 430 , we had occasion to consider the sufficiency of proof to establish the lack of mental capacity to invalidate a conveyance of real estate.

International Union of Electrical & Machine Workers v. Hudson

295 Ark. 107 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 21, 1988

Just as clearly it would have been unfair to prohibit ArkLa from presenting all its defenses with respect to the leases in the Morris case. … It clearly predominates the individual issues which may arise if the unions are held liable under the mass action theory.

Hamilton v. County Board of Education

223 Ark. 803 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 7, 1954

Stats., 1947) clearly had to do with re-zoning of new County School Districts (United) and not annexation, which is alone involved here. … We held in that case: (Headnote 1) “The County Board of Education may dissolve any school district and annex the territory thereof to any district within the county when petitioned to do so hy a majority of the qualified

King v. Whitfield

339 Ark. 176 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 18, 1999

Nevertheless, our election laws can be written to establish, encourage, and facilitate both finality and honesty in Arkansas elections. … The point is that the complaint was clearly filed within the *28 20-day time limit set out in Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-801(d) (1987).

Schirmer v. Baldwin

182 Ark. 581 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 1930

Fletcher was called as a witness at the trial from which this appeal comes by contestee, who was named as executrix off the will and who had qualified as such after its probate had been ordered !by the probate court. … That the statute may be waived by a proper party in interest is clearly established by the great weight of authority. In the case of National Annuity Association v. McCall, 103 Ark. 206 , 146 S. W. 125 , 48 L. R. A. (N.

Selig v. Barnett

233 Ark. 900 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 2, 1961

Stern qualified as Executor; the Estate was duly administered, and finally closed in the Jefferson Probate Court on September 12,1950. Ben J. Altheimer, Jr. … and in view of this fact the action of the guardian in holding and treating this asset as valuable for all these years under such supervision is attributable to the minors, and that both the minors and the guardian are clearly

Burgess v. Daniel Plumbing & Gas Co.

225 Ark. 792 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 16, 1956

Appellee admits it has not asked the [union controlled] "hiring hall" for any union workers since March 10th, but, as is clearly evident, it would have been a futile gesture. … There does not appear to have been a shortage of qualified plumbers in the city of Fort Smith.

State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance v. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

370 Ark. 251 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 14, 2007

Gasoline, it maintains, clearly falls within that definition. The second error State Auto asserts is that in Minerva , this court speculated about the intent of the drafters of the insurance policy. … However, we have also noted an exception to this general rule where disputed extrinsic evidence is offered to establish what the ambiguous language means. See Gammill v. Provident Life & Accident Ins.

Becky Lewallen, in Her Official Capacity as Washington County Clerk v. Progress for Cane Hill, a Local-Option Ballot Question Committee

699 S.W.3d 101 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 31, 2024

The parties all admit this vote does not qualify for the ballot if the canvassers must be residents of Arkansas. … We have explained that “[w]hen the will of the General Assembly is clearly expressed, we are required to adhere to it without regard to consequences.

Bakalekos v. Furlow

385 S.W.3d 810 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 1, 2011

They then assert that the phrase expressio unius est exclusio alterius 1 requires any increase to take the same form as the benefit established by statute. … Appellants have failed to convince us that the circuit court’s interpretation is clearly wrong.

Hall v. Staha

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

Applying these stricter standards, we draw a conclusion that is clearly contrary to the Chancellor’s. II. … Both attempted to quantify the compensation required to persuade other similarly qualified executives to accept Dunhall’s top two management positions.

Weatherford v. State

352 Ark. 324 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 20, 2003

These principles, which form the doctrine of precedent, were well established and well regarded at the time this nation was founded. … There, the court stated: An opinion which qualifies as one not designated for publication is written primarily for the parties and their attorneys.

Ozark Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission

342 Ark. 591 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 9, 2000

The exit fees were established to deal with the obligations of Columbia and Tennessee under the fifteen-year contracts with Ozark to use fifty percent of the pipeline’s capacity. … The burden is on the person or entity protesting the assessment to show that the assessment is manifestly excessive, clearly erroneous, or confiscatory. Tuthill v.