Case law

State v. Curran

7 Ark. 321 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1851

for a subject to sue his sovereign in his own court of justice, and that this light in the subject was unqualified in the English government until the usurpation of the feudal Kings, and was afterwards always allowed in a qualified … R. 225,) are of this kind, and there are other cases which go to the fullest extent in establishing this doctrinel It will be seen then, that, so far from such a restriction militating against the interest of the State, those

Little Rock, Hot Springs & Texas Railway Co. v. Spencer

42 L.R.A. 334 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 2, 1898

The court in the very decision points out the distinction where it says: “There is a clearly defined line between the contractor, the employer, and the laborer, and although each may labor in his own way, the class to which … The court said: “The word ‘servants’ is qualified, and to some extent limited, in its meaning by its association with the word ‘laborers.’

Fowler v. State

339 Ark. 207 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 18, 1999

Rather, the State sought to establish that Mr. Fowler and Mr. … However, the Court qualified this broad statement by stating: [T]he type of organization in which a witness and a party share membership may be relevant to show bias.

Flanagan v. Drainage District No. 17

176 Ark. 31 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 30, 1928

were let at one and the same time, one being the consideration for the other; (2) that the construction contract was let privately, for an exorbitant price, without competition; (3) that an error of two feet was made in establishing … the cases on this issue from our own court cited and relied on by counsel both for appellants and appellees, and find it unnecessary to investigate the decisions of other courts; for we have concluded that the issue is clearly

Seeco, Inc. v. Hales

341 Ark. 673 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 13, 2000

Second, the APSC is a regulatory agency established by the General Assembly to regulate public utilities. … Our opinion clearly states that the trial judge had the option of “splintering the trial of individual issues, if necessary.”

Williams v. State

347 Ark. 728 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 2002

Persons comprising the venire are presumed to be unbiased and qualified to serve. Smith v. State, 343 Ark. 552 , 39 S.W.3d 739 (2001). … The evidence of the chase quite clearly showed how desperate Williams was to avoid arrest. The evidence was that he attained speeds of 120 miles per hour.

Dimas-Martinez v. State

385 S.W.3d 238 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 8, 2011

The “substantial evidence” standard clearly requires a greater quantum of proof than the “any evidence, however slight” standard. The problem with the majority’s suggestion, then, is obvious. … Just as in Banks, the evidence of the gun clip with .380 ammunition was relevant to establish that Appellant had access to the type of ammunition used in Jefferson’s murder.

Lard v. State

431 S.W.3d 249 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 2014

Therefore, evidence revealing that Lard had warrants for his arrest and that Lard had knowledge of this fact was independently relevant to establish a motive for his actions. … This court has held that once an expert is qualified, the weaknesses in any factual underpinning of the expert’s opinion may be exposed on cross-examination, and such a weakness goes to the weight and credibility of the expert

Edwards v. Stills

335 Ark. 470 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 21, 1998

State, 319 Ark. 669 , 894 S.W.2d 564 (1995) establishes the correct standard for allowing evidence of a prior bad act to show method of operation. … We clearly pointed out in Abernathy v.

Stewart v. State

8 Ark. 720 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1853

But the constitution also declares j; that he shall not be deprived of his life or liberty, but by due's' course of law.- Delays growing out of the established mode of proceeding, which has been so established by law equally … The accused would never adopt the formality of moving for a new trial, if, by standing on a multitude of exceptions, he could secure a reversal, which entitles him not merely to a discharge, but an immunity from another prosecution