Case law

Greene v. State

335 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 5, 1998

Under California law, residential burglary, but not any other type of burglary, qualified as a "serious felony." … The applicable statute clearly obligated the Trial Court to hold the hearing.

Purvis v. City of Little Rock

282 Ark. 102 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 26, 1984

The court clearly approved revenue bonds in the language which follows: A single answer will dispose of both objections. … Also, assume that the owners of those establishments wanted the same bond privileges that have been extended to La Quinta and the Kettle and that the city board again approved a bond issue.

Borden v. State

6 Ark. 519 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1851

The result of this proceeding was in the first place a judicial sentence by which the defendant incurred a qualified forfeiture of his lands and goods and a suspension of his civil rights as a citizen: and in the second place … The existence of this rule of law and this consequence, besides being thus established by authority, is also further established by a legitimate process of reasoning predicated upon the foundation that among the powers vested

Southeastern Distributing Co. v. Miller Brewing Co.

366 Ark. 560 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 15, 2006

Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the non-moving party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Id. … Miller argues that these provisions clearly require the wholesaler to notify the supplier in writing in order to trigger the supplier’s duty to approve a transfer.

Teston v. Arkansas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners

361 Ark. 300 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2005

Similarly, the construction of a state statute by an administrative board or agency will not be overturned unless it is clearly wrong. Thomas v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 319 Ark. 782 , 894 S.W.2d 584 (1995). … This court firmly established the rules governing the raising and developing of constitutional arguments before an administrative agency in AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v.

Goodwin v. Harrison

300 Ark. 474 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 27, 1989

Here, the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in refusing to allow further voir dire. … The appellant next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to qualify a medical doctor as an expert in the field of gynecology. This argument is also without merit.

Delta Oxygen Co. v. Scott

238 Ark. 534 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 26, 1964

Negligence cannot be established by guess work. As stated in Henry H. Cross Co. v. … He modestly disclaimed being an ‘ ‘ expert,” but he was certainly well qualified by professional, scientific, and technical training, and also by practical experience, to answer the questions propounded to him.

State v. Bell

329 Ark. 422 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 14, 1997

Indeed, the factors clearly preponderate in favor of a knowing and intelligent waiver. … State, 298 Ark. 1, 9 , 765 S.W.2d 566, 570 (1989), "mere suspicion" does not qualify as probable cause, and "[e]ven a `strong reason to suspect' will not suffice." Roderick v.

Holland v. State

471 S.W.3d 179 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 1, 2015

Clearly, these acts were sufficiently similar to pass muster under the pedophile exception. … There, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had established a special protective service agency (CYS) to investigate-cases of suspected child maltreatment and neglect.

Anderson v. Levy

33 Ark. 665 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1878

The evidence seems to establish clearly that owing this vast amount he dispaired of being able to redeem at any time. … He has a qualified statutory right to the possession, and for the purpose of paying the debts, may apply to the probate court for their sale.

FirstPlus Home Loan Owner 1997-1 v. Bryant

372 Ark. 466 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 28, 2008

Adequacy We have previously explained that the three elements of the adequacy requirement are: (1) the representative counsel must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation; (2) that there be … The appellants, however, are plowing old ground in raising an issue that has clearly been decided by this court.

Collins v. Johnson

26 F. Cas. 131 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1835

I do not review the American cases that establish it. only because this has been perfectly well done in a recent treatise by a member of our own bar. Whart. Am. Cr. Law. pp. 623-635. … But our power cannot be qualified by the absence of precedent, if the principles of accustomed and essential justice invite our action.

Clayton, State Treasurer v. City of Little Rock

211 Ark. 893 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 1947

Tbe italicized words show that the appropriation was clearly sufficient to include tbe increased participation allowed by Act 288 of 1943. … It is mentioned here merely to show a legislative recognition of the fact that Act 4 of 1941 established a bond year.

Texas & St. Louis Railway v. Orr

46 Ark. 182 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1885

doubted whether the fact that the blind, the lame, the sick and feeble, the aged and the child, as well as the occasionally festive, were likely to pass over this route according to the custom of the company, as proved clearly … The court qualified them, as asked, to the effect that if deceased left the train at the-state line, under inducements produced by the conduct of defendant’s agents, the relation of carrier did not cease then. .

Potter v. Easley

288 Ark. 133 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 3, 1986

We are not convinced that the custody order is clearly erroneous. V. Interest. … Our first opinion did not say it clearly, but the briefs in that case, and the ones before us now, show that the $9,565.08 was money received by Mr.

Andres v. First Ark. Development Finance Corp.

230 Ark. 594 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 18, 1959

a proposed constitutional amendment, the first section of which reads as follows: “Any city of the first or second class, any incorporated town, and any county, may issue, by and with the consent of the majority of the qualified … This section clearly provides that loans will be made only to those persons, firms or corporations who cannot obtain financing elsewhere.

Jennifer McGill, Individually and on Behalf of the Arkansas Canvassing Compliance Committee; And Cherokee Nation Entertainment, LLC v. John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Arkansas Secretary of State Local Voters in Charge, a Ballot Question Committee; And Jim Knight, Individually and on Behalf of Local Voters in Charge Intervenors

2024 Ark. 149 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 17, 2024

We will review a proposal’s validity if the measure is “clearly contrary to law.” Armstrong, 2022 Ark. 167, at 14, 652 S.W.3d at 177. … This language is clearly prospective as it seeks to take away authority that the Racing Commission currently possesses.

Elliott v. W. E. Clark & Sons

247 Ark. 651 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 17, 1969

[I] t is well established that one who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, and that any doubt as to the existence of such an issue is resolved against … I don’t call myself a qualified man as to splicing a cable. Q. What was the appearance? A. It just came to an abrupt stop. It wasn’t raveled or no indication that it had been spliced back in the cable. Q.

Kahn v. Vaughan

49 Ark. 518 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1887

On the contrary the amendment of 1887, supra, clearly implies that notice is not required until the board has completed its labors, when a hearing is afforded to those who desire it, in the County Court. … This is the established rule. Cooley on Tax. (2d ed.), 364-5, and cases cited there and supra.

Rankin v. State

329 Ark. 379 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 14, 1997

A finding by the trial court that the defendant is mentally retarded prevents the jury from being “death qualified.” … Rankin’s custodial statements was clearly “raised by the defendant” by way of Mr. Rankin’s pretrial motion to suppress.