Case law

State v. Herndon

365 Ark. 185 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 2, 2006

We concluded, Clearly, [Rule 36.10] refers to an appeal by the State following either a misdemeanor or felony prosecution. Just as clearly, neither is involved in the case before us. … Bickerstaff, supra, to the extent it stands for the proposition that violations of AGFC regulations do not qualify as misdemeanors. They clearly do based on AGFC Regulation 01.000H.

Jackson v. Mundaca Financial Services, Inc.

349 Ark. 84 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 30, 2002

Code Ann. § 4-3-305 provides immunity for a holder in due course from the constitutional prohibition of usury. … It has been well established that Rule 8 requires that affirmative defenses including estoppel defenses, such as the holder-in-due-course doctrine, be argued in the pleadings. Wright v.

UPI v. Hernreich

241 Ark. 33 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 19, 1966

’s failure to qualify to do business in this state, entitled him to a summary judgment. … At any rate, we think clearly that these facts were disputed, and a summary judgment should not have been granted.

Cribbs v. Benedict

64 Ark. 555 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 1897

The act is clearly within the sphere of legitimate legislation (6 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, ’2), and it is immaterial as to what particular emanation of the sovereign power it be referred.' … Had it used any of these qualifying words, instead of “general,” the argument of learned counsel for appellees on this point would have been irrefutable.

Cummings v. Fingers

296 Ark. 276 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 18, 1988

The Bennett case is clearly dissimilar to the one before us. … Code Ann. § 16-113-301 (1987)] which had been enacted prior to the establishment of chancery courts in 1903 — as was the situation in this court’s earlier decision of Morgan Utilities, Inc.

Railway Co. v. Ferguson

18 L.R.A. 110 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 3, 1892

The law upon this subject, and the reason for it, are clearly and succinctly stated by Chief Justice Gibson in Knight v. Abert, 6 Penn. … The case comes clearly within the general rule, as we have stated it.

Cammack v. Chalmers

284 Ark. 161 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 3, 1984

The chancellor's findings will not be reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. Hughes v. Gibbs, 282 Ark. 488 , 669 S.W.2d 451 (1984). We do not find that the chancellor's holding was clearly erroneous. … It was within his discretion to establish the 1997 deadline to best effectuate the charitable purpose of Mrs. Cammack's gift.

Pierce v. Edington

38 Ark. 150 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1881

McDowell had been duly elected trustee for the ensuing year,, and had qualified and acted. … -school trustee for district No. 6, qualified and entered upon his duties as such.

Humphrey v. Garrett

218 Ark. 418 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 19, 1951

The proof showed that the one educational institution capable of qualifying under the Act was the College of the Ozarks at Clarksville, where a department of pharmacy was established in 1946 at the request of the State Board … But' this determination can not be arbitrary to such an extent that things or purposes clearly “outside of the line of necessary expenses of government” may receive monetary benefactions.

Downey v. Toler, Judge

214 Ark. 334 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 20, 1948

However, it was clearly pointed ont in that case that the Legislature, intended to confine suits against the State Treasurer to. … It is a matter of common knowledge that such headquarters have been established and that state policemen reside and perform their duties in various counties over the state.

Benton v. Gunter

342 Ark. 543 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 2000

Specifically, appellees complained that he was not qualified to run because he was not a qualified elector of the City of Pine Bluff. … On the other hand, section 16-17-108(dddd)(2)(A) is a specific statute addressing the unique election requirements established by the legislature for the second-division Pine Bluff municipal-judge position.

Milton v. State

144 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 10, 1920

While said body of water has no continuous connection with the river situated but a few yards away, such connection is established during all periods of high water, and continues for a sufficient length of time to allow fish … Francis basin is a permanent enterprise, and is intended to afford im'munity from the overflow of waters from the Mississippi River, and that it does afford such immunity, except at rare intervals when the levee breaks, as

Preston v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

354 Ark. 666 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 2003

This point clearly turns on whether the Prestons’ Oklahoma attorneys were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Arkansas. … Affirmed. 1 The doctors requested that the Prestons admit: (1) that they do not have any qualified medical support for the allegations of negligence against the doctors in the complaint; (2) that they do not have any qualified

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Wilson

323 Ark. 151 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 22, 1996

Wilson is qualified for Medicaid benefits. … Medical Services Policy 3332.2 #13 provides in pertinent part: A Medicaid Qualifying Trust is a trust or “similar legal device” established by an individual (or his spouse) who is the beneficiary of the trust and who gives

Zachary v. Pace

4 Ark. 212 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1848

If this is the legal import of his answer, then it is clear that he did not make a positive, but a qualified, refusal. … is the very fact upon which the plaintiff relies to establish a conversion.

Beasley v. Parnell

177 Ark. 912 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 9, 1928

If the Senate be not in session when such appointment is made, the appointee shall qualify and hold office until his appointment be rejected by the Senate when it next convenes. … shall he appointed and qualified, and that the other is where a fixed period of time is provided in the statute when the appointment shall be made.

State v. Buzzard

4 Ark. 18 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1842

Suppose the constitutional existence of such immunity in favor of the right to keep and bear arms as is urged by the appellee be admitted. By what legal right can a person accused of crime be disarmed ? … The reason for keeping and bearing arms, given in the instrument itself, is clearly explanatory, and furnishes the true interpretation of the claim in question.

State of Arkansas; Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration; And Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, Alcoholic Beverage Control Division v. Good Day Farm Arkansas, LLC; And Capital City Medicinals, LLC

2025 Ark. 207 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2025

We therefore reverse the circuit court’s ruling declaring the twenty-eight legislative amendments to amendment 98 null and void, as that conclusion rested on a clearly erroneous interpretation of article 5, section 1 and … Therefore, to give section 23(a) coherence and effect, we are compelled to employ established canons of constitutional construction.

Alexander v. State

575 S.W.3d 401 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 30, 2019

It is far less clear what new claims, if any, Alexander asserts, although ineffective assistance of counsel and diplomatic immunity are referenced. … No hearing in the trial court is required if the proposed petition clearly has no merit because it fails to state a cause of action to support issuance of the writ. See Ramirez v. State , 2018 Ark. 32 , 536 S.W.3d 614 .

Prater v. St. Paul Ins. Co.

293 Ark. 547 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 23, 1987

Lubin concluded that the perforation must have occurred before Prater was seen at the hospital even though he admits that he was not qualified to determine when the perforation occurred. … to establish rules of practice, pleading, and procedure.