Case law

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.

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.

Ford Motor Co. v. Massey

313 Ark. 345 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 1993

A properly qualified expert’s opinion constitutes substantial evidence unless it is shown that the expert’s opinion is without reasonable basis. Wallace v. Williams, 263 Ark. 702 , 567 S.W.2d 111 (1978). … He had previously refused to grant a motion in limine to exclude Exhibit 7 because it related specifically to the throttle cable and the repairs were “clearly defined.”

Sadler v. Sadler

16 Ark. 628 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1856

That sucb is tbe effect of tbe statute, is well established by adjudicated cases, of tbe highest authority. See Calvert vs. Lowell, 5 Eng. R. 151; Brent vs. Chapman, 5 Cranch 358 ; Shelby vs. … The third instruction should have been thus qualified. The j udgment is reversed for the errors above indicated, and the cause remanded with instructions to the court below to grant the plaintiffs a new trial, &c.

Clines v. State

280 Ark. 77 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 5, 1983

The prejudicial aspect is not so obvious that we can say the court was clearly wrong. IX. … After the appellants’ guilt had been established and the penalty phase of the trial was in progress the state was permitted to prove one of the seven aggravating circumstances listed in Ark. Stat.

Moore v. Luxor (North America) Corp.

294 Ark. 326 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 19, 1988

In this appeal, Johnny Moore contends that Luxor should not have prevailed because it is a Washington corporation which has not qualified to do business in Arkansas and thus is not entitled to enforce its contract in our … In my opinion, the court’s original decision in Myers was correct, and our subsequent decision to reverse the initial holding was clearly wrong.

State v. Fairfield Communities Land Co.

260 Ark. 277 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 19, 1976

It is fair to assume that an employer might therefore decide to hire a man rather than a woman, both being qualified. … The majority and dissenting opinions in that case indicate clearly that the statute would not have been sustained had it merely regulated wages and hours, without regard to the health of the female employees.

State v. President of the Bank of Washington

18 Ark. 554 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1857

The instruction, however, is clearly erroneous upon principle, on another ground, in my opinion. … But this concession does not establish the proposition, that demand of interest was necessary to fix a liability to pay interest on the State.

Cockrum v. Fox

359 Ark. 508 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 2, 2004

In the present case, the trial court clearly erred as to the controlling law for a wrongful-death action. … The trial court clearly abused its discretion in disregarding the precedent of Ramirez, supra .

Johnson v. State

321 Ark. 117 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 1995

He states that it was “easy” for the prosecution to “establish the paucity of Dr. … We cannot hold that the trial court’s ruling was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. 2.

Wheatley v. Warren

232 Ark. 123 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 2, 1960

As a basis for the motion, appellants point out that Judge Warren requested the resignation of the board almost immediately upon being inaugurated as county judge, and that this fact clearly showed that his mind was already … “A board or official assuming to try charges against an officer or employee must establish its jurisdiction to do so when challenged, since there is no presumption as to its power in this respect.

Bakalekos v. Furlow

410 S.W.3d 564 · 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.

Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration v. Trotter Ford, Inc. And Trotter Auto, Inc., D/B/A Trotter Toyota

2024 Ark. 31 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 28, 2024

established manner. … business or from the stock in trade of the established reserves of an established business for consumption or use in the established business or by any other person.”

Hall v. Denckla

28 Ark. 506 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1873

The complainants do not claim a debt from Hall’s administrator, but demand the performance of a specific duty, and the case comes clearly within the exception laid down in Sullivan v. … To enable him to get the stock he had conveyed these lands to Mussett, who was qualified, with the understanding that he was to get the stock and transfer the stock to Thompson.

Killoren Electric Company v. Hon

211 Ark. 403 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 31, 1947

The only testimony Hon offered to establish the negligence of the Killoren Elec. … Co. was not a mere qualifying of his testimony with such words as “I think” or “I believe” to express indistinct observation or recollection (see annotation in 4 A. L.

Bullion v. Aetna Insurance

151 Ark. 519 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 30, 1922

Five years is the minimum period over which a dependable experience can be established. “4. A conflagration is any loss in excess of a million dollars. “5. … It is very clearly shown that this could not be done without deliberately falsifying reports, and a false report could, of course, be made on either basis.

Westbrook v. McDonald

184 Ark. 740 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 23, 1931

I do not see how any one old enough and qualified to vote could be misled by the title suggested by the ballot. … It clearly appears that this proceeding is not for the enforcement óf a private wrong.

Marvin Stanton v. State of Arkansas

666 S.W.3d 68 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 11, 2023

Your declaration that you are a witness in the Stanton case made in open court which was the basis for your 2  motion for mistrial clearly establishes that you … Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice: . . . erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice, with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies

Dodson v. Allstate Insurance

345 Ark. 430 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 28, 2001

The burden of proof in establishing jury misconduct is on the moving party. Id. … This pleading clearly alleges that Dodson was performing illegal, fraudulent acts.

Patterson v. Thompson

24 Ark. 55 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1862

And perhaps a notice of some cases in which courts have declined to set aside verdicts for giving excessive damages may lead to the conclusion that the immunity of a verdict from interference by a court, upon this ground, … But in the American courts, the doctrino is not thus qualified, and even if the daughter be absent without the intention of returning to her father’s house, he may sue. Martin vs. Payne, 9 John., 389 ; Nickleson vs.