Case law

Alexander v. Davis

346 Ark. 310 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 25, 2001

In 1956, this court in Baker v. … See Allred v. McLoud, 343 Ark. 35 , 31 S.W.2d 836 (2000); see also Spires v.

Hosto v. Brickell

265 Ark. 147 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 1979

State, 262 Ark. 595 , 559 S.W. 2d 704 ; Air Pollution Variance Board v. Western Alfalfa Corp., 416 U.S. 861 , 94 S. Ct. 2114 , 40 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1974). … The Arkansas State Board of Pharmacy is certainly a licensing and disciplining board under the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-2625. No element of forcible entry is present.

Nixon v. Allen

150 Ark. 244 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 24, 1921

Snetzer v. Gregg, supra; Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Ark. 549 ; Milwee v. Tribble, 139 Ark. 574 . … Cain v. Woodruff County, 89 Ark. 456 ; Humphrey v. Sadler, 40 Ark. 100 ; Throop on Public Officers, § 500. The General Assembly cannot delegate this legislative power to any individual, officer, or board.

Patterson v. State

306 Ark. 385 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 9, 1991

When Stone returned to Arkansas from a five-week stay in Ohio, Patterson and Stone got back together, and Patterson asked Brown to stop seeing him. Brown persisted, however, and was with Patterson when he killed Dunham. … In Peals v.

Hutton v. King

134 Ark. 463 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 10, 1918

State v. McDiarmid, 27 Ark. 176 ; Board of Equalization Cases, supra; Cain v. Woodruff County, 89 Ark. 456 . … Board of Equalization Cases, supra.

Overstreet v. Levee District No. 1

80 Ark. 462 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 15, 1906

Stiewel v. Fencing District, 71 Ark. 17 . Copies of the records ©f the board of directors and assessors of the district were introduced in evidence. … Co. v. Waterworks Improvement District, 68 Ark. 276 ; Stiewel v. Fencing District, supra; Ritter v. Drainage Dist. No. 1, 78 Ark. 580 ; State v. Kidd, 125 Ala. 413 ; McCrory v. Manes, 47 Ga. 90 ; Smith v.

Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Gibbs

114 Ark. 559 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 26, 1914

Co. v. Brown, 73 Ark. 42 , and Harkey v. Mechanics & Traders Ins. Co., 62 Ark. 274 . There was no necessity in this Industrial. Mutual Indemnity Co. v. … Co. v. Brown, 73 Ark. 42 .

Boles v. Kelley

90 Ark. 29 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 22, 1909

It is not shown that the board of improvements were illegally appointed. We do not see any reason why they could not have been appointed by the same ballot another board was selected. … Board of Improvement District v. Offenhauser, 84 Ark. 257, 268 ; Crane v. Siloam Springs, 67 Ark. 30, 43 ; Ahern v. Board of Improvement District, 69 Ark. 68, 76 ; Driver v. Moore, 81 Ark. 80, 86 .

Owens v. State

283 Ark. 327 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 1, 1984

He maintains this proof is tainted because he was arrested without probable cause, citing Dunnaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979) and Brown v. Sullivan, 422 U.S. 590 (1975). On the morning of December 17, Sgt. … Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 598 (1975); Wong Son v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963); Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 341 (1939); Brewer v. State, supra.

State Use Calhoun County v. Poole

185 Ark. 370 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 14, 1932

Several members of the board testified that Mr. … Board of Education v.

Howe v. Little

182 Ark. 1083 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 12, 1931

Black v. Goldweber, 172 Ark. 862 , 291 S. W. 76 ; Bennett v. Bell, 176 Ark. 690 , 3 S. W. (2d) 996 . … R. 581, note; Black v. Goldweber, supra. But while this is true, the guest takes the automobile and the driver as he finds them. See quotation from Munson v. Rupker (Ind. App.) 148 N. E. 169 , in Black v.

City of Fort Smith v. Housing Authority of Fort Smith

256 Ark. 254 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 18, 1974

Rainwater v. Haynes, 244 Ark. 1191 , 428 S.W. 2d 254 . Furthermore, we recently considered the constitutional issue in Nahlen v. Woods, 255 Ark. 974 . 504 S.W. 2d 749 (1974). … In Hogue v. Housing Authority of North Little Rock, 201 Ark. 263 , 144 S.W. 2d 49 (1940), we held the Housing Authority Act constitutionally valid. In doing so, we quoted with approval from Los Angeles v.

Oliver v. Ft. Smith Light & Traction Co.

89 Ark. 222 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 25, 1909

The seats were full when he boarded the car, but the running or foot boards were down, and there were then only three or four persons on the foot board. After this the car filled till it was very much crowded. … Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Kimbro, 75 Ark. 211 .

Willoughby v. Hot Springs Ice Co.

180 Ark. 231 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 28, 1929

Co. v. Benton, 86 Ark. 289 , 110 S. W. 1037 . … In the case of Manning v. Sherman, 110 Me. 32 , 86 Atl. 245 , 46 L. R. A. N.

Grand Lodge of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Cothran

190 Ark. 234 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 28, 1935

In this respect this case is ruled by Phillips v. Mosaic Templars of America, 154 Ark. 173 , 241 S. … Appel v. Cooper Ins. Co., 76 Ohio St. 52 , 80 N. E. 955 ; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Howle, Ohio Cir. Ct. 621, 10 Ohio C. D. 290. But we are of the opinion that we are already committed to the rule as stated in Phillips v.

Ellison v. Oliver

147 Ark. 252 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 31, 1921

Any other contract is unauthorized, in excess of the powers vested in the board and voidable at the election of the State.” Again in Hodges v. Lawyers’ Co-operative Pub. … Such is the holding of the Supreme Court of Montana in State v. Hogan, 56 Pac. 818 , and State v. Smith, 57 Pac. 445 .

Beaty v. Humphrey, State Auditor

195 Ark. 1008 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 11, 1938

E. 913 ; Criswell v. State, 126 Md. 103 , 94 Atl. 549 ; La Porta v. Board of Health, 71 N. J. L. 88, 58 Atl. 115 ; Marx v. Maybury, 36 Fed. 2d 397, appeal dismissed 284 U. S. 691 , 52 S. Ct. 5 , 76 L. Ed. 583 ; Clark v. … Laramie, 40 Wyo. 74 , 275 Pac. 106 ; State Board v. Blocker, 176 Ga. 125 , 167 S. E. 298 ; Harris v. State, 56 Okla. Crim. 105 , 34 Pac. 2d 289 ; Banghart v. Walsh, 339 Ill. 132 , 171 N. E. 154 .

Schirmer v. Light

222 Ark. 693 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 23, 1953

Robinson, Prosecuting Attorney, v. Jones, 194 Ark. 445 , 108 S. W. 901 . … In Eclectic State Medical Board v. Beatty, 203 Ark. 294 , 156 S. W. 2d 246 , the plaintiff undertook to enjoin the Eclectic Board from revoking his license.

Anthony v. Peay

18 Ark. 24 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1856

Epps v. Van Denson 4 Paige R. 76, and cases there cited. Hitchcock v. Scribner, 3 Johns. Cases 321. Clark v. Long, 4 Randolph R. 452. Shepherd's Exr. v. Stark, 3 Munf. R. 29. Richardson's Exr.v. Hunt, 2 Ib. 148. … Whiting v. U. S. Bank, 13 Peter's R. 14. Harding v. Hardy, 11 Wheaton R. 104. We shall accordingly reverse the decree and dismiss the cross-bill, at the costs of the appellants, both in this Court and the Court below.

Click v. Sample

73 Ark. 194 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 3, 1904

If he was a member of the board, under the decisions in Burns v. Thompson, 64 Ark. 489 , and School District v. … School District v. Bennett, 52 Ark. 511 .