Case law

City of Springdale v. Weathers

241 Ark. 772 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 16, 1967

In the first place the testimony was cumulative, it already having been established that appellees could not operate a Grade A Dairy because of the permanent injury to his farm. … This record clearly shows that the permanent damage from which the intention to take is inferred was sometime in the period from 1953 to 1962.

Ruiz v. State

265 Ark. 875 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 4, 1979

This fact is a matter that is clearly within the domain of the jury when considering all the evidence. … Of course, the direct evidence from the state’s witnesses, and even of appellant himself, established that Morgan was killed during the perpetration of the robbery.

SEECO Inc. v. Stewmon

2016 Ark. 198 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 8, 2016

Here the commonality is established by the alleged inside dealing among the Southwestern Energy subsidiaries. … We cannot conclude that in so doing, the circuit court clearly erred.

Farm Bureau Insurance Co. of Arkansas, Inc. v. Running M Farms, Inc.

366 Ark. 480 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 2006

Mitchell also tries to distinguish Hufsmith by referring to an equipment-lease agreement between Mitchell and the farming corporations and contends that that qualified as a financial obligation. … The context of this language, which cites to the Findley case, clearly denotes that Arkansas has not recognized a tort for mere nonperformance by an insurance carrier.

Butt v. Evans Law Firm, P.A.

351 Ark. 566 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 30, 2003

Nixon had no prior illegal-exaction experience or class-action experience and, thus, did not qualify under the Powell criterion. … The members of the plaintiff class received a benefit from the establishment of the Settlement Funds. 43.

White v. State

298 Ark. 163 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 6, 1989

Apparently the state feels it can bootstrap this "set-up" deal into qualifying the appellant as a major drug dealer. … An examination of the facts, as related by the officers and the appellant, clearly indicates to me that the appellant was tricked into these sales.

Hemphill v. Hamilton

6 Ark. 425 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1850

These several statutes tended to enlarge the powers of the executor and administrator over the property, and at the same time to limit and qualify his right to it and fix and vest in the distributees more enlarged and well … Palmer was reaffirmed and established upon a more permanent and enlarged basis. (Partridge vs. Court, 5 Price 419, 423, and Court vs. Partridge, 5 Price 412. King vs. Thom, 1 Term R. 487.)

Bosely v. Woodruff County Court

28 Ark. 306 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1873

From the foregoing sections it is incumbent on the relator to establish two things: first, that he was the duly and legally elected sheriff of Woodruff county; and, second, that he gave the required bond within the time prescribed … This, we say, more clearly seems to have been the intention of the legislature, than to have provided a contingency, in which the county court should be clothed with an appointing power.

Pillow v. Roberts

7 Ark. 822 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1852

The plain and obvious intention of the legislature is clearly expressed in this 96th section, that the deed made by a collector of taxes, as authorized in the preceding section, when acknowledged and recorded, should be received … But assuming these deeds to be irregular and worthless, the court erred in refusing to receive them in evidence, in connection with proof of possession in order to establish a defence under the statutes-of limitation.

Anderson v. State

357 Ark. 180 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 29, 2004

That qualifies, and we find no abuse of the circuit court’s discretion. ii. … We agree that the jury’s decision to check Form 2 D was clearly in error.

Fones v. Phillips

39 Ark. 17 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1882

This was stronger than the instruction given afterwards on the same point by the court of its own motion, and was clearly erroneous. … These principles are to be considered in connection with the established doctrine of contributory negligence on the other side.

Tyler Edward Tait v. State of Arkansas

2026 Ark. 28 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2026

A circuit court’s factual determination on a motion for a new trial will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Johnson, 2017 Ark. 106, at 3, 515 S.W.3d at 117. … The court does not presume prejudice but rather presumes that jurors are unbiased and qualified to serve, and it is the appellant’s burden to show otherwise. Id., 541 S.W.3d at 438.

Owens v. State

354 Ark. 644 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 2003

An offense is so included if: (1) It is established by proof of the same or less than all the elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged; or (2) It consists of an attempt to commit the offense charged … To qualify as a lesser-included offense under section 5-l-110(b)(l), the lesser charge must be established by proof of the same or less than all the elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged.

Howard v. State

367 Ark. 18 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 2006

Clearly, this was a matter of carefully considered trial strategy. … "A petitioner may qualify for relief under Ark. R.Crim.

Matter of Arkansas Bar Ass'n

287 Ark. 495 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 16, 1985

The government has a legitimate need to attract qualified lawyers as well as to maintain high ethical standards. … DR 7-102(B)(1), also noted in connection with Rule 1.6, provides that "a lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that... his client has ... perpetrated a fraud upon ... a tribunal shall if the client does not

Sera v. State

341 Ark. 415 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 25, 2000

Gary was an employee of Sera’s company, and Haygood assisted the company to get its mill offices established. … Clearly, Sera had the opportunity, the scheme, or plan in place, and he had already carried it out on one prior occasion with Deal.

Roberts v. State

352 Ark. 489 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 10, 2003

This court will not reverse the trial court's conclusion unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. … We will not reverse the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress a statement unless it is clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Conner, 334 Ark. 457 , 982 S.W.2d 655 .

Keenan v. Peevy

267 Ark. 218 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 3, 1979

Once a status, such as marriage, is established, it is presumed to continue, until the contrary is shown, or a different and controlling presumption is advanced. Welch v. … In determining incompetency of one other than a minor, the probate court must require that the evidence of incompetency include the testimony or the sworn written statement of one or more qualified medical witnesses.

INT'L U. OF ELEC., ETC., WKRS. v. Hudson

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

Just as clearly it would have been unfair to prohibit Ark-La 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.

Desoto Gathering Co. v. Ramsey

480 S.W.3d 144 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 28, 2016

The extraordinary writ of prohibition has clearly defined uses; accordingly, our resort to it should be restrained. … Clearly, the majority’s decision rests on infirm ground because the authorities cited in the opinion do not support its position.