Case law

Ouachita Valley Bank v. Pullen

181 Ark. 38 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 17, 1930

We think the circumstances surrounding the organization and conduct.of the affairs of the Bank of Smackover, clearly show the position of the appellant on these questions is not tenable, for, while in theory the two banks … The statute above quoted under which the appellant seeks immunity was manifestly enacted for the protection of those dealing -with the bank; its purpose was to protect depositors and other creditors of the institution, and

Pledger v. Birkhead

156 Ark. 443 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1923

Three physicians qualified as experts and testified on behalf of the appellee. … The burden of proof therefore was on the appellee to establish the allegations of his complaint. Taylor v. McClintock, supra.

Bob v. Powers

19 Ark. 424 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1858

The above rule is restricted or qualified by our statute, in which it is provided that “ No gift of any slave shall pass or vest any right, estate or title, in or to any such slave, in any person whatsoever, unless the same … As to whether the instrument in question being held not good as a deed of emancipation at the trial, it could have been rendered available to the plaintiff as a testamentary emancipation, we have to say: it is clearly our

State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. State Board of Education

195 Ark. 222 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 20, 1937

state of Arkansas shall issue no bonds or other evidences of indebtedness pledging the faith and credit of the state or any of its revenues for any purpose whatsoever, except by and with the consent of the majority of the qualified … Although there are no statistics available in any current departmental report, of which this court will take notice, showing receipts to the credit of the permanent school fund from various sources established by the state

Dyer v. Bean

15 Ark. 519 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1855

The evidence is clearly not sufficient to sustain the allegation against the denial of the answer. There is only one witness, by whom an attempt is made to prove that Mrs. … direct denial thereof, that the positive testimony of two witnesses, or one witness with strong corroborative circumstances, is necessary to overturn the answer, a preliminary question is raised, which may, to some exent, qualify

Arkansas Department of Health v. Westark Christian Action Council

322 Ark. 440 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 13, 1995

We conclude that Form ACHS-01 provides that data and easily qualifies as a vital record under the Vital Statistics Act. … The Freedom of Information Act establishes the broad policy that all government records are open to the public.

Eason v. State

6 Ark. 481 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1851

It is in effect conceded in that opinion that, if this section of the Bill of Rights be not thus partially repealed, the act in question is clearly unconstitutional and void. … And this is the inevitable practicable result when the principle . is carried out its full extent, that the Bill of Rights exerts no qualifying or controiing influence upon the General Assembly when in the exercise of their

Flores v. State

348 Ark. 28 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 21, 2002

“Thus a patient’s statement that he was struck by an automobile would qualify but not his statement that the car was driven through a red light.” Id. … We held that the statement regarding cause was inadmissible under Rule 803(4), because the doctor was unable to recall who gave him the statement and, thus, a special relationship with the patient could not be established

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Cole

380 S.W.3d 429 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2011

It is the duty of the courts to sustain a statute unless it appears to be clearly outside the scope of reasonable and legitimate regulation. Id. (citing City of Little Rock v. … We further noted that privacy is mentioned in more than eighty 11(lstatutes enacted by the Arkansas General Assembly, thereby establishing “a public policy of the General Assembly supporting a right to privacy.”

Kitchen v. State

271 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 10, 1980

Appellant correctly perceives that the common law tests of competency of a witness in a criminal case in Arkansas have been clearly established. … B was qualified by the court as a competent witness as to her ability to know the difference between a lie and the truth and her knowledge that one would be punished for lying.

Swindler v. State

264 Ark. 107 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 17, 1978

Robert Taake did not qualify as an impartial juror, Glover v. State, 248 Ark. 1260 , 455 S.W.2d 670 (1970). … California, 343 U.S. 181 , 72 S.Ct. 599 , 96 L.Ed. 872 , was clearly reflected in the sum total of the voir dire examination of a majority of the jurors finally placed in the jury box.

Baxter v. Brooks

29 Ark. 173 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1874

Now here is a tribunal established by the constitution to try contested elections for governor. … at all, is established by the judgment of the circuit court of Pulaski county.

Wood v. Goodson

253 Ark. 196 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 9, 1972

We have clearly recognized the necessity for personal service in criminal contempt proceedings. In Hudkins v. … We have furnished no guide here, and it would really not have been appropriate to use the vehicle of this judicial opinion for establishment of guidelines for all such cases.

Evans v. Arkansas Racing Commission & Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc.

270 Ark. 788 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 20, 1980

It reads: After receiving numerous complaints regarding bookmaking activities by Gomer Evans, Sr., at the Louisiana Downs Race Track, surveillance was established by Louisiana Downs security personnel on the subject. … The law clearly gives the Racing Commission the duty to regulate Oaklawn and the authority to carry out that regulation. In this case, the Commission had the right to order Oaklawn to permit Evans to race.

Randy William Gay v. State of Arkansas

2022 Ark. 23 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 10, 2022

We cannot say that the circuit court’s findings in this regard were clearly erroneous. D. … The deprivation of that right, with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as “structural error.” Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 281–82.

Smith v. State

352 Ark. 92 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 20, 2003

Nothing is taken as intended which is not clearly expressed. Graham v. State, 314 Ark. 152 , 861 S.W.2d 299 (1993); Hales v. State, 299 Ark. 93 , 771 S.W.2d 285 (1989). … The first-degree battery statute clearly encompasses Mr. Smith's conduct in striking Mrs. Quandt repeatedly on the head with the butt of his gun.

Davasher v. State

308 Ark. 154 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 27, 1992

The proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing that his own Fourth Amendment rights have been violated by the challenged search or seizure, State v. … At the time of trial, he had been qualified to testify about human bite mark identification six or seven times. He had testified concerning dog bite identification twice. Dr.

Runyan v. Goodrum

147 Ark. 481 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 1921

Therefore, it is thoroughly established by the undisputed testimony in this record that x-ray work is a specialty, and that this work at St. … To state the facts is enough to clearly distinguish all of the above cases from the case in hand.

Randy William Gay v. State of Arkansas

2022 Ark. 23 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 10, 2022

We cannot say that the circuit court’s findings in this regard were clearly erroneous. D. … The deprivation of that right, with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as “structural error.” Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 281–82.

Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Lemley

254 Ark. 724 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1973

We held that this testimony was clearly contrary to the established rule which we reiterated to be as follows: “ ‘The rule is firmly established that the price paid by a condemnor is inadmissible in establishing the fair … THE COURT: Let’s back up and get your history of the production and further qualify him. MR. GORDON: That is my qualification.