Case law

Vaught v. Frey

219 Ark. 525 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 12, 1951

No appeal was taken from the Board’s finding that a majority of electors had signed the petition. In the case of Pharr v. Knox, 145 Ark. 4 , 223 S. … In Pharr v.

Dyer v. Jacoway

76 Ark. 171 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 24, 1905

Jones v. Quinnipiack Bank, 29 Conn. 25 ; Daniel v. Hunt, 77 Ala. 567 ; Fertig v. Henne, 197 Pa. 560 ; Pool v. Dosier, 59 Miss. 258 ; Steward v. … Bond v. Montgomery, 56 Ark. 563 ; Harris v. Watson, lb. 574.

Bank of Commerce v. Goolsby

129 Ark. 416 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 28, 1917

Bailey v. … V.

Lavender v. City of Rogers

232 Ark. 673 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 7, 1960

by State Board of Education for all projects where the Board requires its approval thereof. … Hendrickson v. Farmers’ Bank and Trust Co., 189 Ark. 423 , 73 S. W. 2d 725 . Here, however, we do not know the provisions of the ordinance, nor the manner in which the city seeks to regulate this construction.

Ellis v. Gann

185 Ark. 625 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 18, 1932

It has been decided in several recent cases that the posting of the notice for thirty days under said section was a prerequisite to filing the petition with the board. Texarkana Special School District v. … Consolidated School District No. 2, ante p. 213; Shook v. Morrison, ante p. 522. No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Gordon v. Moore

44 Ark. 349 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1884

Brown paid Moore the money, and witness settled with Brown for it afterwards. … It was so expressly held in Tourns v. Riddle, 2 Alabama, and in Stockton v. Stockton, 40 Ind., 225 .

Washington Street Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Camden

263 Ark. 649 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 12, 1978

This case is a sequel to Lindsey v. City of Camden, 239 Ark. 736 , 393 S.W. 2d 864 (1965). … The subsequent action by the Board, with full knowledge of the Commission’s error in recommending approval, cured any defect. N. Texas Utilities Co. v. Community Natural Gas Co., supra.

Monsanto Chemical Company v. Thornbrough

229 Ark. 362 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 1, 1958

This is an issue of fact, upon which we must affirm the Board of Review’s finding's if supported by substantial evidence. Terry Dairy Products Co. v. Cash, 224 Ark. 576 , 275 S. W. 2d 12 . … See also Ablondi v. Board of Review, 8 N. J. Super. 71, 73 A. 2d 262 , and Note, 12 Ark. L. Rev. 123 .

The Ballard Grp. Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

436 S.W.3d 445 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 2014

Brown v. Tucker, 330 Ark. 435, 438 , 954 S.W.2d 262, 264 (1997) (citation omitted) (quoting Malone v. Trans-States Lines, Inc., 325 Ark. 383, 386 , 926 S.W.2d 659, 661 (1996) (quoting Hollingsworth v. … Brown, 330 Ark. 435 , 954 S.W.2d 262 ; Mason v. Funderburk, 247 Ark. 521 , 446 S.W.2d 543 (1969). A fifth requirement has been added by this court: the conduct of the defendant must be “improper.” Faulkner v. Ark.

Gwathney v. State

381 S.W.3d 744 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 5, 2009

In Huckaby v. … board.”

Cox v. Road Improvement District No. 8

118 Ark. 119 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 5, 1915

The petition may describe the improvement contemplated in general terms and leave the plans for the future development of the board. Ferguson v. McLain, 113 Ark. 193 , 168 S. … W. 864 ; Board of Improvement v. Brun, 105 Ark. 65 ; Boles v. Kelley, 90 Ark. 29 ; Watkins v.

Lynn School District No. 76 v. Smithville School District No. 31

213 Ark. 268 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 12, 1948

Bird v. McCrory Special School District, 175 Ark. 724 , 300 S. W. 370 . … The Board of directors of appellant was without power to execute the agreements and appellees were chargeable with notice thereof. School District No. 18 of Jackson County v.

Maddox v. Neal

45 Ark. 121 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1885

Oliver v. … Workman v. Board of Education, 18 Mich., 460 . Many of the reported cases of this character have proceeded upon the same principle. Corey v. Carter, sup.; Bertomean v. Directors, 3 Wood., 177; State v.

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. James

78 Ark. 490 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 1906

Matteson v. Moulton, 11 Hun (N. Y.), 268; Matteson v. Moulton, 79 N. Y. 627 ; Dickinson v. Marsh, 57 Mo. Appeals, 566. … Overman v. Hoboken City Bank, 31 N. J. L. 564; Colorado National Bank v. Boettcher, 5 Col. 190 , 46 Am. St. Rep. 142 ; Hall v. Flanders, 83 Me. 242 , 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 220; Rousch v. Duff, 35 Mo. 312 .

Fort Smith v. Quinn

170 Ark. 54 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 21, 1925

Under the rule announced in the case of Hall v. Bledsoe, 126 Ark. 125 , the proceeding before the board was quasi-judicial in its nature and not exclusively administrative or ministerial. … Besides, no such rule had been adopted by either the civil service board or the board of commissioners before appellee was discharged on this account.

Chapman & Dewey Land Co. v. Wilson

91 Ark. 30 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 7, 1909

Stiewel v. Fencing District, 71 Ark. 17 ; Overstreet v. Levee District, 80 Ark. 462 ; Driver v. Moore, 81 Ark. 80 ; Hale v. Moore, 82 Ark. 75 ; Board of Improvement Dist. v. Offenhauser, 84 Ark. 257 . … Dermott v. Jones, 23 How. 220 ; Brown v. Guarantee Trust Co., 128 U. S. 403 .

Wiley v. Flournoy

30 Ark. 609 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1875

Mayhew v. Davis, 4 McLean, 213 ; Clark v. Crane, 5 Mich., 151 ; The People v. Sehermerhorn, 19 Barb., 558 : Black, on Tax Titles, 305-311; Cooley on Const. Lim., 74-78; Sedgw. on Stat. and Const. Law, 372. … Such alteration would therefore have been void, if made during the session of the board. Black, on Tax Titles, 466; Cleghorn v. Postlewait, 43 Ill., 428 .

Hendrix v. Morris

127 Ark. 222 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 29, 1917

Gray, who stated that he was the secretary of the school board, and that he kept the minutes of the board, which were offered in evidence. … involving this right where statutes equally as broad as our own have been construed as being insufficient to confer this right on the directors. (2) Cases on this subject are collected in a note to the case of Shanklin v.

Davis v. Gaines

48 Ark. 370 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1886

Palmer v. Stumph, 29 Ind.,329; Hale v. Kenosha, 29 Wis., 599 . 5. Levee inspectors. This distinction was pointed out in McGehee v. … In Little Rock v.

McCafferty v. Oxford American Literary Project, Inc.

484 S.W.3d 662 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 31, 2016

Dist. v. … Chapman v.