Case law

Martin v. State

328 Ark. 420 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 5, 1997

Moreover, in Ferrell , it was the witness's technical knowledge of firearms, not his knowledge of the defendant, that qualified him to testify about pistols. … Thus, the officer could have qualified as an expert with specialized knowledge to assist the jury in determining a fact in issue under Ark. R. Evid. 702.

Ex parte Dame

162 Ark. 382 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 19, 1923

human being, it is safe to say that some peaceful legal method for securing the liberty of the individual, of the same purport as that of our present writ of habeas corpus, must have been coeval with organized society and established … be the power of the judges of the Supreme Court under art. 7, § 4, supra, I issued the writ of habeas corpus, and, on reviewing the record of the proceedings before Judge Lea, I was of the opinion that the prisoner was clearly

Gist v. Gans

30 Ark. 285 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1875

That is clearly the doctrine of our decisions. Hill v. Barnes, 11 N. H., 395; Burham v. Ayer, 35 N. H., 354. We have also carefully examined the cases cited by counsel for appellee. In Hunt v. … It would be to establish guilt by a rule of law when there would be at least an equal presumption of innocence.

Biscoe v. Jenkins

5 Ark. 108 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1849

. & Ald. 463, Lord Eclenbouough used language from which his dissatisfaction with the whole doctrine may be clearly seen. “ This doctrine,” said he “ of rebutting the Statute of limitations by an acknowledgment other than … What indeed would seem decisive on this subject is that the new promise if qualified or conditional restrains the right of the party to its own terms, and if he cannot revive by these terms he cannot recover at all.”

Dresden's v. Walker

21 Ark. 539 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 15, 1860

Now, what Spivey considered to be the north-east quarter of section twenty-three, may be so, or may not be so, but the fact alleged is clearly not proven by him, unless the grounds of his consideration were shown to be good … And where the matter to be proven is the identity of a piece of land, and the means of establishing it depend upon the notorious marks and lines of the public surveys, the conjecture of no person ought to be taken as evidence

Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen

318 Ark. 241 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 14, 1994

Clearly, other factors were involved in our decision to enjoin the Secretary of State from certifying the proposed Utility Regulation Amendment as valid. … The Attorney General's decision was not clearly wrong.

Carnall v. Crawford County

6 Ark. 604 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1851

But there is no warrant in the practice of the English courts for a trial de novo after judgment in the inferior court, and this is doubtless the foundation of the practice long established in this State, to take no other … This seeming to be the discriminating line kept' in view by the legislature between an absolute and a qualified trial de novo : and this will be the result under the construction that we have given as to the import of this

Whitley v. Cranford

354 Ark. 253 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 25, 2003

Election contests are of two types, one where a candidate seeks an order declaring himself or herself the winner, and a second where a qualified voter seeks to void the election. King v. … Appellant’s allegations do not establish that the result was really uncertain or name any particular votes, except his own, which could have been supplied in the proceeding.

Hodges v. Gray

321 Ark. 7 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 12, 1995

The record clearly reflects a contest of wills between counsel and the chancellor. At one point, Ms. … The complaint alleged that in an unrelated case Chancellor Gray ordered her law clerk, who was not qualified to serve as a special judge, to grant a divorce for another of Hodges's clients.

Beebe v. Little Rock

68 Ark. 39 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 31, 1900

Whatever absolute or qualified right a city has to dispose of other classes of real estate held by it, it is now too well settled to require extended argument that a city has no power to sell or give away its streets, or … the government; that Beebe’s patent covering the land in controversy ivas only issued to him on condition that he should release to the city this very property, and thereby perfect its title, and the history of the case clearly

Bowen v. State

322 Ark. 483 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 20, 1995

Bowen’s Multiple Personality Disorder presents problems in clearly making a decision.” … Bowen argues that the clothes were not properly shown to have been his because the State failed to establish a chain of custody prior to their introduction.

Patton v. Coates

41 Ark. 111 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1883

The prima facie case of the plaintiff was thus -established, and the onus devolved upon the defendant of showing, aliunde, that notwithstanding he was not properly •entitled to the certificate which formed the ground of his … Disposing first of the latter point, we concur with the circuit judge in finding that as many as one hundred and eighteen illegal votes for the appellee have not been clearly shown.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Howard

367 Ark. 55 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 2006

Standing In order to establish standing, a party must show that he has a right which a statute infringes upon and that he is within the class of persons affected by the statute. Thompson v. … In McEuen , we explained that section 25-15-207(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, clearly establishes that: [I]t is not necessary that the injury already have occurred or that a person show he was affected by it in

Little Rock & Fort Smith Railway Co. v. Barker

39 Ark. 491 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1882

John Hallum was elected special judge to try the case, qualified, and the case was tried before him. … The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, because the trial judge, in charging the jury, had not clearly stated the rule as to the measure of damages, so as to restrict it to pecuniary* loss.

Lytle v. State

17 Ark. 608 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1856

Clearly, as to this point, Fowler is to be considered as incurring costs, not for his clients, but on account of his legal interest, and for himself. … It clearly cannot be taken as cultivation in 1829. I shall require something else, to constitute possession on the 29th May, 1830.

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Pennington

261 Ark. 650 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 23, 1977

It was being operated by fireman Hagan, who was then in a training program to qualify as an engineer. Engineer Hall and brakeman Sparks were also in the cab of the engine, which was actually moving backward. … the driver, a distinct possibility, we would certainly be hard put to say that her ability to see the approaching train in time to cause the pickup truck to be stopped in time to avoid the catastrophic collision was so clearly

Fields v. State

255 Ark. 540 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 26, 1973

In the case now before us, there is no evidence of systematic discrimination and remarks of counsel clearly indicate that his contention is that there were no black persons on the panel at the time of this trial. … The facts tending to establish the grounds for issuance were listed as statements from Teresa Shoemaker and Sandra Mitchell, who had been interviewed separately.

K.C. Properties of N.W. Arkansas, Inc. v. Lowell Investment Partners, LLC

373 Ark. 14 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 13, 2008

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 a material issue of fact. … The circuit court found that there was no foundation in Bailey’s affidavit that he was a real estate agent or otherwise qualified to assert his opinion with respect to the availability of affordable property along 1-540 for

Snell v. State

290 Ark. 503 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1986

The murder weapon, a ring and the .45 calibre pistol stolen in the robbery were clearly tied to *638 Wayne Snell. … An accused is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, before a qualified jury, on the specific offense with which he is charged.

Little Rock University v. George W. Donaghey Foundation

252 Ark. 1148 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 17, 1972

Clearly the idea that the institution to be nurtured by the Donaghey trust be a public institution supported from the public treasury rather than a private one, so abhorrent to the majority, posed no fears to Governor and … That is the object of the establishment of the Donaghey Foundation. Today it is sponsoring the fortunes of Little Rock Junior College.