Case law

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.

Echols v. State

354 Ark. 530 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 30, 2003

This court will not reverse the denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Jones, 340 Ark. 1 , 8 S.W.3d 482 ; State v. … Jurors are presumed unbiased and qualified to serve. Isom v. State, 284 Ark. 426 , 682 S.W.2d 755 (1985) (per curiam).

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.

Wilson v. State

35 Ark. 414 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1880

The state must establish the guilt of the accused in all cases before he can be condemned, and he is entitled, by a humane provision of the law, to the benefit of all reasonable doubts. … I look upon the first section of the-act of March 2, 1875, as having been entirely neutralized by the fourth, wTtich is really the whole law' upon the subject, qualified by the second, third and fifth sections, and enforced

Reyes v. State

329 Ark. 539 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 18, 1997

The remaining question is whether the Ford sedan was “moving or readily movable,” so as to qualify for the Rule 14.1 exception. … We have some doubts that additional evidence establishing Carl Jones as the confidential informant was a substantial factor in the Reyeses’ defense when possession of contraband with intent to deliver was the charge.

Nooner v. State

322 Ark. 87 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 9, 1995

As the evidence of the checks was part and parcel of the State’s evidence establishing robbery, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s receiving this evidence. 8. … The evidence of pecuniary gain was clearly sufficient. 9.

Perroni v. Sachar

513 S.W.3d 239 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 2, 2017

The majority has also immunized the executive director and the JDDC from public scrutiny, no matter how far their decisions may stray from our constitutional mandate. … While he clearly disagreed with the Commission’s dismissal of his complaint, appellant’s complaint before the circuit court did not challenge the Commission’s decision itself, but rather sought declaratory relief regarding

Sheridan v. State

313 Ark. 23 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 3, 1993

Malak’s testimony in this regard, he could have taken this witness as his own, qualified him as an expert in this area, and elicited the testimony. … While it was clearly error, we believe the appellant suffered no prejudice as a result.

Wilkins v. State

258 Ark. 578 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 6, 1975

the general law pertaining to extradition to be that after the requisition has been honored by the Governor of the asylum state, the circuit court can consider a petition for habeas corpus for only two purposes, i.e., to establish … App., 391 S.W. 2d 413 (1965), the Texas Court said: “In extradition cases it is held that, unless clearly void, the validity of an affidavit or indictment upon which demand for extradition is based and its sufficiency as

First National Bank v. Rushton

251 Ark. 74 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 4, 1971

Certainly, it cannot be said that the chancellor’s finding that he was trustee for Numark is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … by the statute without depriving directors of an immunity conferred upon them.”

Rural Special School District No. 50 v. First National Bank

173 Ark. 604 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 11, 1927

After its creation the directors who were elected qualified and acquired lands and erected a school building on the said- lands. The district entered into a contract with Clem P. … “A person contracting with a board of education is presumed to know the limitations of its powers, and can acquire no rights by a contract which such board is not clearly authorized to make.” State v.

Willis v. Crumbly

371 Ark. 517 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 2007

The circuit judge clearly looked to old case law, which predated Amendment 81, and required proof of how the challenged voters voted. … Willis also proffered two binders that contained 265 names, which identified the voter by name in an effort to establish how and why the ballots were alleged to be illegal.

Austin v. Most Worshipful Grand Lodge F. &. A. Masons

200 Ark. 726 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 27, 1940

October 1, 1891, it established, as a part of its beneficial work, what it was pleased to call the Masonic Benefit Association, which existed as its insurance branch until in March, 1933. … Phelix was appointed receiver and qualified.

Trapnall v. Hill

31 Ark. 345 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1876

Trapnall, died, and the present appellant, George Trapnall, qualified as his executor, lodged a transcript in this court, and obtained an appeal from said decree, and now insists as cause of reversal: First — That the court … They stand confessed for the purposes of the suit, and very clearly authorize the relief granted by the decree to complainants in original cause, when taken in connection with the value of the rents and permanent improvements

Green v. City of Jacksonville

357 Ark. 517 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 27, 2004

. *126 Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of an issue of material fact. See id. … Subchapter 4 allows qualifying cities to "adopt" a municipal plan. Ark.Code Ann. § 14-56-402 (Repl.1998). The legislative body adopting the plan may create a planning commission. Ark.Code Ann. § 14-56-404 (Repl.1998).

Rowe v. State

224 Ark. 671 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 28, 1955

We know of no rule announcing prejudice in such circumstances through failure of the state to first show that the dogs were qualified, or that they were experts. … A corollary would seem to be that where flight is established the declaration of one who says he would have defended himself while evading arrest is likewise admissible. See Reed v.

DePriest v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P.

351 S.W.3d 168 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 5, 2009

The California trial court denied AstraZeneca’s motion for demurrer on the basis of preemption, concluding as follows: Assuming drug labeling or the FDA’s authority to prescribe it qualify as federal law for purposes of preemption … Even if the advertising were somehow derived from the labeling it would be nonsensical to hold all advertising valid or immunized simply because it does not “conflict” with the labeling.

Dansby v. State

338 Ark. 697 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 7, 1999

We reverse only if the trial court’s ruling was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Green, supra; Thompson, supra. … Whereas, the path of evidence after seizure is governed by the establishment of a proper chain of custody.

Shawn Cone v. State of Arkansas

654 S.W.3d 648 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 10, 2022

It argues that when a trial court’s ruling is a qualified one, the defendant must renew his objection at trial, contemporaneous with the alleged error, in order to preserve it. … Substantial basis must be provided enough to establish probable cause. I think that happened.

Harris v. City of Little Rock

344 Ark. 95 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 8, 2001

Clearly, Amendment 65 forbids such action. … Calls for speculation of the witness and, also, this witness is not qualified to answer that question since it's a legislative question for the board of directors. .... HARRIS ATTORNEY: All right.