Case law

Tucker v. Wilamouicz

3 Ark. 157 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1847

The first case, in which the negative of the proposition was held, was Watson v. Shelly, 1 J. … The reason given by Lord MaNSFIeld in favor of the rule of Watson v. Shelly, will-not apply in the case before the court, to exclude Brown and Fenno as incompetent.

Bolin v. State

459 S.W.3d 788 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 9, 2015

V. … Brown is inapposite because the petitioner there was ineligible for expungement due to the nature of her offense. The outcome in Brown was not dependent on anything that was written in her sentencing order.

Jenkins v. Goldsby

307 Ark. 558 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 13, 1992

We have held in both Duty v. Watkins, 298 Ark. 437 , 768 S.W.2d 526 (1989), and Brown v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. … Háys, Glaze, Corbin and Brown, JJ., not participating.

Jim Halsey Co., Inc. v. Bonar

284 Ark. 461 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 4, 1985

This court has held that when a defendant denies liability, a plaintiff may proceed under two consistent theories of recovery, Elrod v. G&R Const. Co., 275 Ark. 151 , 628 S.W.2d 17 (1982); Brown v. … Co. v. Kennedy Bros. Const., supra (quoting Sumlin v. Woodson, 211 Ark. 214 , 199 S.W.2d 936 (1947)).

Evans v. McKinley

234 Ark. 472 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1962

In Pugsley v. Sellmeyer, 158 Ark. 247 , 250 S. W. 538 , 30 A. L. … In Johnson v. Robbins, 223 Ark. 150 , 264 S.

Arkansas Central Railroad v. Bennett

82 Ark. 393 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 25, 1907

As originally drawn, the charge was that the conductor, knowing that plaintiff was about to board the train, negligently started the train before he could do.so, and thus invited and exposed him to the risk of boarding a … State v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 58 Me. 176 ; Parsons v. New York Central & Hudson River Ry. Co., 113 N. Y. 355 ; Hatch v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 61 Atl. Rep. 480 ; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sattler, 90 N. W.

Duty v. Keith

191 Ark. 575 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 4, 1935

In the case of Cashion v. Parr, 177 Ark. 458 , 6 S. … Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Arkansas v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 183 Ark. 288 , 35 S. W. (2d) 579 ; Craig v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., 184 Ark. 48 , 41 S. W. (2d) 769 . In the instant case both Mr.

Kildow v. Baldwin Piano & Organ

333 Ark. 335 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 21, 1998

With a pair of pliers in her right hand, she would grab and twist wires around a post, pull one end of the wires through a hole in the board, flip the board over, twist and secure the wires to the back of the board, and send … the board down the line.

Stearns v. Stearns

211 Ark. 568 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 28, 1947

As was said by this court in Kientz v. Kientz, 104 Ark. 381 , 149 S. … Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; Brown v. Brown, 38 Ark. 324 ; Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20 , 14 S. W. 1098 .”

City of Fayetteville v. Carter

52 Ark. 301 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1889

The City of Burlington v. the Putnam Ins. Co., 31 Iowa, 105, 106 ; Van Hook v. Selma, 70 Ala., 361 ; Van Baalan v. People, 40 Mich., 258 ; in re, Wan Yin, 22 Fed. Rep., 701; Johnson v. Philadelphia, 60 Pa. … Weber, 41 Mo., 547 ; Carrigan v. Gage, 68 Mo., 541 ; the State, ex rel., etc., v. Gas Co., 37 Ohio St., 45 ; Clason v. Milwaukee, 30 Wis., 316 .

Gannaway v. Street Improvement District No. 32

164 Ark. 407 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 19, 1924

This question was raised and determined adversely to the contention of appellants herein in the cases of Davis v. Cook, 159 Ark. 84 , and Davis v. … This same question was raised in the recent case of Davis v. Cook, 159 Ark. 84 , involving the affairs of the same district, and it was decided that the assessments of the laterals were, in effect, separately made.

Selig v. Novak

256 Ark. 278 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 25, 1974

Corp. v. SEC, 293 F. 2d 738 (10th Cir. 1961); Handley Inv. Co. v. SEC, 354 F. 2d 64 (10th Cir. 1965); Merrit, Vickers, Inc. v. SEC, 353 F. 2d 293 (2d Cir. 1965). … See Jarvis v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 253 Ark. 728 , 488 S.W. 2d 712 (1973). We have already recited the essential disclosure of facts and of course will not repeat them.

Peek v. Meadors

255 Ark. 347 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 22, 1973

Peterson v. Brown, 216 Ark. 709 , 227 S.W.2d 142 ; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 203 Ark. 1103 , 160 S.W.2d 852 . … Brown v. Maryland Casualty Company, 246 Ark. 1074 , 442 S.W.2d 187 . As a basis for liability of the agent, appellee relies upon the doctrine of constructive fraud set out in Lane v.

Phillips v. Jones

79 Ark. 100 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 1906

Pindall v. Trevor, 30 Ark. 249 ; Pledger v. Garrison, 42 Ark. 246 . … Browne, Stat. Frauds, § 476. Consequently, this court held in Moore v.

Arkebauer v. Falcon Zinc Co.

178 Ark. 943 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 21, 1929

Brown v. Ark. Central Power Co., 174 Ark. 177 , 294 S. W. 709 ; C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Humphreys, 107 Ark, 330, 155 S. W. 127 , and cases there cited. “Original means pertaining to the beginning or origin. … The appellee contends that the instruction given in the case of Brown v. Ark.

Taylor v. Evans

102 Ark. 640 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 18, 1912

Gibson v. Herriott, 55 Ark. 85 ; Valley Planting Co. v. Wise, 93 Ark. 1 ; 1 Ency. of Ev. 438. … Co. v. Carter, 93 Ark. 589 ; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hartung, 95 Ark. 220 .

Smith v. Daniel

452 S.W.3d 575 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2014

V, § 20. … See, e.g., Simons v. Marshall, 369 Ark. 447 , 255 S.W.3d 838 (2007); Fegans v. Norris, 351 Ark. 200 , 89 S.W.3d 919 (2002).

Shields v. State

348 Ark. 7 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 21, 2002

Even assuming that Shields was illegally arrested, the Supreme Court in Brown v. … Brown, 422 U.S. at 602 .

Potlatch Forests, Inc. v. Smith

237 Ark. 468 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 13, 1964

Pruitt v. Moon, 230 Ark. 986 , 328 S. W. 2d 71 . … Witnesses Brown and Marx testified that they (separately) walked to Brown’s truck, and that Smith’s car was not in its regular parking place.

Sikes v. Douglas

147 Ark. 469 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 1921

This point was decided against appellant’s contention in Easley v. Patterson, supra. … Seitz v. Merriwether, 114 Ark. 289 . The commissioners had no authority to enter into a contract for payment of an unreasonable fee to an engineer. Sain v. Bogle. 122 Ark. 14 ; Bayou Meto Drainage Dist. v.