Case law

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.

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.

Terwilliger v. St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center

304 Ark. 626 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 25, 1991

Revenue Service ERISA exemption; testimony of Jack Reynolds established the limitations placed on SVI by the Roman Catholic Church; and testimony of Don Nixon established SVI’s attempts to obtain an exemption. … The evidence here did not establish that.

Simpson v. State

274 Ark. 188 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 2, 1981

This rule applies to testimony given under expectation or hope of immunity or leniency or under the coercive effect of his detention by authorities. Stone v. State, supra; Boyd v. State, supra. See also Campbell v. … The old issue of “death qualified” juries is raised, no doubt for posterity’s sake. We have repeatedly ruled that such a jury is not unconstitutional. Ruiz v. State, 273 Ark. 94 , 617 S.W. 2d 6 (1981); Miller v.

Oliver v. Simons

318 Ark. 402 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 28, 1994

We clearly determined that it was a municipal office. … By Act 42 of 1972, the General Assembly established procedures for qualifying as an independent candidate for municipal office.

Gipson v. Morley

217 Ark. 560 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 22, 1950

The Louisiana Court concluded: “It is to be clearly understood that we are not holding that the legislature cannot under any circumstances adopt legislation, pursuant to the state’s police power, relating to the establishing … It is established that such enactments do not. violate the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities, or other possibly relevant clauses in the Federal Constitution. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.

Arkansas Department of Commerce, Division of Workforce Services v. Legal Aid of Arkansas

2022 Ark. 130 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 9, 2022

DWS contends that Woosley, supra, is distinguishable because several Arkansas statutes establish its authority to investigate and enforce suspected criminal activity. … League of Women Voters of Arkansas, 2022 Ark. 32, at 16, 639 S.W.3d 319, 327, sovereign immunity bars this FOIA action against the Division of Workforce Services, a state agency. Ark. Const. art. 5, § 20.

Arkansas Department of Commerce, Division of Workforce Services v. Legal Aid of Arkansas

2022 Ark. 130 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 9, 2022

DWS contends that Woosley, supra, is distinguishable because several Arkansas statutes establish its authority to investigate and enforce suspected criminal activity. … League of Women Voters of Arkansas, 2022 Ark. 32, at 16, 639 S.W.3d 319, 327, sovereign immunity bars this FOIA action against the Division of Workforce Services, a state agency. Ark. Const. art. 5, § 20.

Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee

340 Ark. 481 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 2, 2000

In its brief, the State argued the sovereign-immunity defense and prayed that no more briefs be filed. Lake View responded four days later and countered the sovereign-immunity defense. … Clearly, if trial courts can be said to be empowered to postpone the effectiveness of their decisions, such authority could play havoc with appeals—as has been the situation in this case.

Gibson Appliance Co. v. Nationwide Insurance

341 Ark. 536 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 2000

Whether the jury’s verdict was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … that the trial court should have granted its motion for directed verdict, and presently its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, is Nationwide’s alleged failure to prove either the existence of a defect and establish

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Spears

311 Ark. 96 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 16, 1992

The work schedule and not the profession will establish these individuals as household members. … Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Specifically, we do not believe the evidence established that Ms. Spears qualifies as an adult household member.

Noland v. State

265 Ark. 764 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 21, 1979

In addition to the fact that the terms of the agreement established that the approval of the trial judge was necessary for the dismissal of the charges against the appellant, Ark. Stat. … Clearly a promise of immunity approved by, or with the consent of, the court, should be upheld. *** Thus, it is obvious that Hammers is not controlling in this case.

Burkett v. PPG Industries, Inc.

294 Ark. 30 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 7, 1987

However, we affirm the trial court's holding that the insurance companies are immune from suit, due to our workers' compensation laws which identify the insurers with the employer who clearly is immune. *623 1. … That subsection establishes a formula by which the proceeds of any recovery from the "third party" are distributed.

Oliver v. Phillips

375 Ark. 287 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 19, 2008

Also, this court has clearly stated that “[o]nee the election takes place, the issue of a candidate’s eligibility under § 7-5-207(b) becomes moot.” Clement v. … parameters by establishing a residence in the geographical area and becoming a qualified elector.

Wiseman v. Batchelor

315 Ark. 85 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 8, 1993

Ark. 1992) (immunity for attorneys excluded for intentional acts under § 16-22-310). … Yet, Rule 15(a) clearly provides that a party may amend the pleadings at any time without leave of the court. Then, it is incumbent on the opposing party to object to the amendment, followed by a court ruling.

ConAgra, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

342 Ark. 672 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 16, 2000

On de novo review, we hold that the chancery court clearly erred in doing so. See Ferguson v. Green, supra. … Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding that the information at issue qualified as a trade secret.

Goodrum v. Merchants & Planters Bank

102 Ark. 326 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 8, 1912

Bricker, 34 Neb. 516 , the court says: “In order to establish the offense of compounding a felony, it must appear that there was an agreement not to prosecute the case or to suppress evidence tending to prove it. … At that time no mention was made of any immunity to Goodrum from prosecution.

Trammell v. Harrell

4 Ark. 602 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1842

The very language of the first section of the act clearly shows what kind of debts might be set off one against the other. … The mutuality of the persons being thus clearly established, it expressly negatives the idea that a joint note may "be set off against a separate, or e con-verso.

Reaves v. Jones

257 Ark. 210 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 12, 1974

Const., art. 5, § 9 and was no longer qualified to serve as a senator. … The fundamental privileges and immunities possessed by the two houses of the legislature are imbedded in two provisions of our constitution.

Harris v. Textor

235 Ark. 497 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 8, 1962

Since the Cartrights were clearly entitled to vote in Pulaski county it follows that they were no longer eligible to cast their ballots in Greene county. … Robinson, J., thinks that the Cartrights were qualified to vote in Greene county. McFaddin, J., dissents.