Case law

Shannon v. Wilson

329 Ark. 143 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 1997

Leggett, 373 So.2d 494 (La.1979) (there should not be civil immunity for alcoholic retailers even when there is no dramshop statute); Massachusetts: Adamian v. … Clearly, the public policy expressed by the General Assembly in the regulation of the retail liquor industry and in the criminalization of the sale of liquor to persons under twenty-one has not been extended by that body

Goff v. State

329 Ark. 513 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 18, 1997

However, the evidence clearly reveals that Mr. Goff had been murdered in his own apartment. First, there was blood on the inside of the door, not on the outside. Second, Mr. … We conclude the evidence was more than sufficient to establish that Ms. Goff murdered her husband. Thus, the trial court properly denied Ms. Goff s motion for a directed verdict. Ms.

Hamilton v. State

348 Ark. 532 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 9, 2002

Specifically, the State contends that because Hamilton did not receive the death sentence, any argument he might now raise as to the death-qualified composition of his jury is moot. We agree. … The diagram clearly was of assistance to the jury in understanding the testimony regarding the crime scene. See, e.g., Bly v. State, 267 Ark. 613 , 593 S.W.2d 450 (1980).

Bowie v. State

185 Ark. 834 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 16, 1932

The grounds of the objection to the panel were (a) that one of the jury commissioners was not qualified as such under the provisions of § 6344 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest. … We would not shirk the re-examination or hesitate to correct the error should such clearly appear, even though convinced of the guilt of the accused and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, were this defendant

Turner v. State

258 Ark. 425 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 7, 1975

No burden of refuting the alleged discrimination in jury selection rests upon the state until the defendant has established a prima facie case. Williams v. State, supra. … Clearly, the inquiry as to Turner's state of intoxication was relevant for the jury's consideration of these issues.

Hill v. State

331 Ark. 312 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 5, 1998

We agree with the State that even if the jurors were not qualified to sit, Appellant was not forced to exhaust all of his peremptory challenges to try to secure a fair and impartial jury. … Appellant’s guilt had been established before this hearing and any error was harmless. VI.

Arkansas Savings & Loan Ass'n Board v. Corning Savings & Loan Ass'n

253 Ark. 987 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 1973

The last sentence of the findings quoted clearly illustrates that the circuit court went beyond the limits of its scope of review and weighed the evidence. … which must not only establish management and a bookkeeping system, but train personnel and buy supplies and equipment.

Morris v. State

252 Ark. 487 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 8, 1972

Here, Morris had no such right; drugs in his possession were clearly contraband. … Law cannot be established or abrogated, except by the sovereign will; but this will may be expressed, or implied or presumed, and whether it manifests itself by words or by acts is of little consequence.

Louisiana v. Joint Pipeline Group

373 S.W.3d 292 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 7, 2010

Expert testimony qualifies as substantial evidence unless it is shown that the expert opinion is without a reasonable basis. Ark. State Plant Bd. v. Bullock, 345 Ark. 373 , 48 S.W.3d 516 (2001). … Here, the AHO — and, subsequently, the Commission — clearly credited Phillips’s testimony.

Arkansas Savings & Loan Ass'n Board v. Central Arkansas Savings & Loan Ass'n

260 Ark. 58 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 28, 1976

I would point out that no statistical yardstick has been established for making the determinations intrusted to the Board. … Lynch, an eminently qualified economist, but also for the findings of the Board, which was in these respects exercising its expertise.

Federal Express Corp. v. Skelton

265 Ark. 187 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 1979

The above cases establish the right of an executive official to disobey an unconstitutional enactment of the General Assembly. … N A C does not qualify and cannot be considered a railroad company.

Arkansas Health Services Commission v. Regional Care Facilities, Inc.

351 Ark. 331 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 19, 2002

Further, the mayor of the municipality could designate any qualified elector of the township, or any licensed attorney, to serve as judge of the court. … Clearly, as the need for more nursing home beds increases in this state, counties other than Benton County will come within the ambit of the August 1999 rule.

Schnitt v. McKellar

244 Ark. 377 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 29, 1968

This principle is well established and is expressed in more or less similar language in many cases.* * * This maxim is as applicable at the present time as it was when it was first formulated. … The Oklahoma Court clearly qualified this discretion as existing only in cases where there was no disagreement between the parties rendering co-ownership impractical and stated specifically that inability of a cotenant to

Arkansas Public Service Commission v. Pulaski County Board of Equalization

266 Ark. 64 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1979

A few excerpts from the act clearly establish this fact. … This means that for 5 years, 15 counties, and the taxpayers in those counties, will enjoy immunity from complying with the law.

Blueford v. State

370 S.W.3d 496 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 20, 2011

When the analysis presents itself as a mixed question of law and fact, the factual determinations made by the circuit court are given due deference and are not reversed unless clearly erroneous. Id. … Under Arkansas law it is well settled that a deadlocked jury is a circumstance that qualifies as an overruling necessity. Shaw v. State, 304 Ark. 381 , 802 S.W.2d 468 (1991).

Rushton v. First National Bank of Magnolia

244 Ark. 503 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 1, 1968

Here the record conclusively establishes that Mr. Eckert was one of only three key witnesses in this lawsuit from the beginning. … By reason of their knowledge of the decedent’s affairs they are peculiarly qualified to do so, and unless they can d#o so the estate will be deprived of their valuable services.

TIMOTHY CLEVENGER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 11, 2025

We will reverse a denial of a motion to suppress only if the ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Nelson v. … Second, Brenk applies exclusively to expert testimony concerning luminol results, and the State never qualified Ms. Buchert as an expert witness. See generally id.

Prock v. Bull Shoals Boat Landing

431 S.W.3d 858 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 27, 2014

The evidence demonstrates that the claimant’s testimony is filled with inconsistencies and unexplained evidence which clearly indicates that the claimant failed to rebut the presumption. … The standards by which our appellate courts are to review findings of fact made by the Commission were established long ago and are so familiar that they can be recited by rote.

Williams v. First Unum Life Insurance

358 Ark. 224 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 24, 2004

The extrinsic evidence clearly was not all in accordance with Elam's position that bipolar affective disorder is biological and not a mental illness. As such, the issue was properly submitted to the jury. … Elam intended to use the testimony of Gail Matthews, a local attorney, as extrinsic evidence to establish that the policy language was ambiguous. According to Mr.

Davies v. Pettit

6 Ark. 349 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1850

Hence this rule of exclusion is not absolute but qualified and its operation is commensurate only with the reasons upon which it is based and consequently when in a given case the reason of the rule has ceased, as by the … This then being satisfactorily proven, secondary evidence of the incorporation of the town is clearly admissible by the rules oí evidence.” The case of Littleton Harris et al. vs.