Case law

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.

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 .

Files v. Hill

268 Ark. 106 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 25, 1980

Arnold sought to have the actions of the Boards of Election Commissioners of the State of Arkansas and of Pulaski . … The Board of Election Commissioners has no power to call or hold a new election and for the court to direct it to do so would be to confer a power that does not exist. See McFarlin v. Kelly, supra; McCoy v.

City of Newport v. Owens

213 Ark. 513 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 17, 1948

W. 577 ; Barnwell v. Gravette, 87 Ark. 430 , 112 S. W. 973 ; Batesville v. Ball, 100 Ark. 496 , 140 S. W. 712 , Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1317; Fowler v. Ratterree, 110 Ark. 8 , 160 S. W. 893 ; Brown v. … Some of the cases so holding are Brown v. Peach Orchard, supra, and Pine Bluff v. Mead, supra.

Rector v. Bernaschina

64 Ark. 650 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 29, 1898

Matheny, family board 140 days.” … Richie v. Frazer, 50 Ark. 393 ; Jenkins v. Shinn, 55 Ark. 352 . The evidence admitted over the objections of the appellant clearly had that effect in this case, and was incompetent.

G.A.C. Trans-World Acceptance Corp. v. Jaynes Enterprises, Inc.

255 Ark. 752 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 17, 1973

In Board of Equalization v. … GEORGE ROSE SMITH and BROWN, JJ., join in this opinion. NOTES [1] Our holdings in such cases as Smith v. Howard, 23 Ark. 203 , and Mandel 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.

Baldridge v. City of North Little Rock

258 Ark. 246 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 9, 1975

McMinn Co. v. … Brown and Byrd, JJ., dissent.

Roberts v. Priest

341 Ark. 813 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 7, 2000

Brown v. Arkansas Dep’t of Corr., 339 Ark. 458 , 6 S.W.3d 102 (1999). Moreover, we have previously held that the thirty-day cure period provided in Ark. … (As used in this section the phrase “legislative body or bodies” shall include, but not be limited to the General Assembly, a Quorum Court, a City Council, a School Board or an Improvement or Service District Board.)

Poe v. Case

263 Ark. 488 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 22, 1978

See Browning v. Tarwater, 215 Kan. 501 , 524 P. 2d 1135 (1974); Spencer v. Franks, supra; Matter of Fox, 567 P. 2d 985 (Okla., 1977); 2 Am. Jur. 2d 929, Adoption, § 85. … See Browning v. Tarwater, supra; Matter of Fox, supra. Besides, the new adoption statute is the most recent declaration of public policy with reference to adoptions. In Ark. Stat.

Thomas v. Street Improvement District No. 296

158 Ark. 187 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 9, 1923

Counsel for appellant rely upon the decision of this court in Kirst v. … Such is tiie effect of our decision in Ingram v.

Hudson v. Higgins

175 Ark. 585 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 28, 1927

Vincenheller v. Reagan, 69 Ark. 460 , 64 S. W. 278 ; State v. Sloan, 66 Ark. 575 , 53 S. W. 47 , 74 Am. St. Rep. 106 . … Clayton v. Berry, 27 Ark. 129 ; State v. Moore, 50 Neb. 88 , 69 N. W. 373 , 61 Am. St. Rep. 538 ; Stratton v. Green, 45 Cal. 149 .” See also Jobe v. Caldwell, 93 Ark. 503 , 125 S. W. 423 ; s. c., 99 Ark. 20 , 136 S.

Mutual Aid Union v. Lovitt

170 Ark. 745 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 8, 1926

Baker v. Mosaic Templars of America, 135 Ark. 65 ; Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Newsom, 142 Ark. 132 . See also United Assurance Association v. Frederick, 130 Ark. 12 . … assessment could only be levied by the board."

McDonald v. Bryant

238 Ark. 338 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 14, 1964

POWERS, DUTIES, FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD; APPOINTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE AS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD; AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR EXPENSES AND■OPERATION OF THE BOARD; PROVIDING … , powers, duties, functions and authority of the board appointing the attorney general . of the state as the attorney for the board; authorizing the appropriation of funds for expenses and operation of the board; providing

Releford v. Pine Bluff School District No. 3

355 Ark. 503 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 8, 2004

This court first considered this Act in the case of Small v. … of this opinion, the trial court appears to have relied on the case of McGough v.

Milsap v. Holland

184 Ark. 996 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 21, 1931

Bledsoe v. McKeowen, 181 Ark. 584 , 26 S. W. (2d) 900 . … No. 21 v. Common School Dist. No. 87, 35 S. W. (2d) 587 ; and Nathan Special School Dist. No. 4 v. Bullock Springs Special Sch. Dist. No. 36, 183 Ark. 706 , 38 S. W. (2d) 19 .

Ark. Power & Light Co. v. McGowan, Admr.

227 Ark. 55 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 10, 1956

Adams v. Barron G. … Dierks Lumber & Coal Company v. Brown, 8 Cir., 19 F. 2d 732 ; Arkansas Light & Power Company v. Cullen, 167 Ark. 379 , 268 S. W. 12 ; Arkansas General Utilities Company v. Shipman, 188 Ark. 580 , 67 S. W. 2d 178 .”

Wortham v. Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.

273 Ark. 179 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 22, 1981

The articles mentioned that the attorney for the ABC Board advised the Board that its actions were proper because there was an exemption in the case of a beer license. … The test in that regard was discussed in Roberts v. Love, 231 Ark. 886 , 333 S.W. 2d 897 (1960). See also Note, Defamatory Innuendo From Innocent Language, 6 Ark. L. Rev. 493 (1952).

London Lancashire Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Payne

180 Ark. 638 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 16, 1929

Stone v. Drake, 79 Ark. 384 , 96 S. W. 197 . In Johnson v. Foster, 69 Ark. 617 , 65 S. … Brown v. Brown, 38 Ark. 324 ; Shirey v. Shirey, 87 Ark. 175 , 112 S. W. 369 ; Walker v. Walker, 147 Ark. 376 , 227 S. W. 762 .

Wood v. Drainage District No. 2

110 Ark. 416 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 8, 1913

In the case of Board of Improvement of Sewer District No. 2 v. … Nugent v. Board of Commissioners, supra; Thompson v. Board of Commissioners of Polk County, supra. This brings us to the question of whether the complaint states a cause of action ag-ainst them.