Case law

Howard v. Tri-State Insurance

253 Ark. 405 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 1972

Lyle Brown, Justice. This case originated from an intersection collision between Worlick Howard, appellant, and a fire truck owned by the city of Paragould and insured by appellee, Tri-State Insurance Company. … Smith v. Alexander, 245 Ark. 567 , 433 S.W. 2d 157 (1968). An erroneous instruction which is likely to mislead the jury is prejudicial. Johnston v. Pennington, 105 Ark. 278 , 150 S.W. 863 (1912).

CITIZENS FOR a BETTER POPE COUNTY, a LOCAL OPTION BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEE; AND JAMES KNIGHT, IN HIS Individual CAPACITY v. BEN CROSS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COUNTY JUDGE OF POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS; PHILLIP HANEY, CALEB MOORE, TIM WHITTENBURG, REUBEN BROWN, JACKIE HEFLIN, JAMIE JACKSON, BLAKE TARPLEY, DOUG SKELTON, BILL SPARKS, JAMES KUSTURIN, RAY BLACK, JOSEPH PEARSON, AND ERNIE ENCHELMAYER, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE QUORUM COURT OF POPE COUNTY, ARKANSAS

2020 Ark. 279 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 17, 2020

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Brown, 2011 Ark. 446. The Pope County Quorum Court passed Emergency Ordinance 2019-O-061 on October 28, 2019, which, pursuant to Ark. … See City of Clinton v. S.

The American Workmen v. Night

202 Ark. 678 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 9, 1941

Certificates of this society shall be issued to its members upon such forms as are prescribed by the Supreme Board of Trustees, and members shall pay such dues and assessments as are levied by the Supreme Board of Trustees … provides that notice shall be given by mail, a failure to receive a notice properly mailed which is not due to the fault of the company is not an excuse for non-payment. ’ ’ And the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Lothrop v.

L. R. & Ft. S. R'y. v. Miles

40 Ark. 298 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1883

That the cattle yard where the cattle were put on board of the car was a mile east of the depot at Altus. … Town of Farmington, 42 Wis., 425 ; Brown v. Ferguson, 4 Leigh. 37. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and the Court below directed to enter judgment for the defendant upon the special findings.

Bolen v. Farmers' Bonded Warehouse

172 Ark. 975 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 1927

McMillan v. Farmers’ Bonded Warehouse Co., 169 Ark. 7 , 272 S. W. 867 . Section 10420, C. & M. … In the ease of Crawford v. Ozark Ins. Co., 97 Ark. 549 , 134 S.

ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZZETTE v. Zimmerman

341 Ark. 771 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 2000

Gazette Co. v. Lofton, 269 Ark. 109 , 598 S.W.2d 745 (1980) (writ of mandamus); Brown v. Kimbrough, Judg., 263 Ark. 913 , 568 S.W.2d 226 (1978) (writ of prohibition); Wood v. … In Brown v.

Guaranty National Insurance v. Denver Roller, Inc.

313 Ark. 128 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 10, 1993

C.R.T., Inc. v. Brown, 269 Ark. 114 , 602 S.W.2d 409 (1980). … Co. v. Smith, 263 Ark. 849 , 568 S.W.2d 11 (1978). In Huntsman v.

Baker v. Gowers

180 Ark. 1110 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 10, 1930

Frauenthal & Schwartz v. Bank of El Paso, 170 Ark. 326 , 280 S. W. 1001 , 44 A. L. R. 871. … Van Hoozer to her grandson, Fenner Brown Baker, may be regarded a voluntary conveyance, it must be remembered that Mrs. Van Hoozer was not indebted to any of the creditors of the corporation, nor to F. B.

Powell v. Bishop

279 Ark. 365 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 6, 1983

opportunity to correct a widely held misconception that mandamus is a proper method by which to review a city’s decision regarding the creation of an improvement district which arose as a result of our decision in Little Rock v. … See Wells v. Purcell, 267 Ark. 456 , 592 S.W.2d 100 (1979). Affirmed.

Howard v. McDiarmid

26 Ark. 100 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1870

It is urged that mandamus is not the proper remedy, if the party can obtain justice by any other proceeding, and the case of “ The People v. … In the case cited the mandamus was prayed for the purpose of convening a board of supervisors to meet and re-count certain votes, and the court refused the mandamus on the ground that the board was functus officio, and if

Schuman v. Eddy

207 Ark. 925 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 20, 1944

The cause reached this court on the former appeal (Eddy v. Schuman, 206 Ark. 849 , 177 S. W. 2d 918 ) from a decree sustaining Mr. Schuman’s demurrer to Dr. Eddy’s complaint. … Therefore BE IT RESOLVED, by the board of commissioners of the Conway County Bridge District that the president and secretary of said board, be and they are hereby authorized to execute such deeds to any of the lands so purchased

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Austin

383 S.W.3d 815 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 2011

(citing Fowler v. Unionaid Life Ins. … Smith v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 340 Ark. 385 , 10 S.W.3d 846 (2000).

Jenson v. Special School Dist. No. 6 of Hot Springs

199 Ark. 886 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 29, 1940

See Miller v. State, use Woodruff Co., 176 Ark. 889 , 1 S. … Schmutz v. Special School Dist. of Little Rock, 78 Ark. 118 , 95 S. W. 438 .

School District No. 56 v. Jackson

110 Ark. 262 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 24, 1913

This court has held that the members of a board of school directors have no power to act individually, and that it is only when convened and acting together as a board that they represent and bind the district by their acts … School District v. Bennett, 52 Ark. 511 ; School District No. 54 v. Garrison, 90 Ark. 335 ; School District No. 22 v. Castell, 105 Ark. 106 , and cases cited.

Bostick v. Pernot

165 Ark. 581 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 20, 1924

See Johnson v. Hamlen, 148 Ark. 634 ; Castle v. Sanders, 160 Ark. 391 . This case is clearly differentiated from the cases of Voss v. Reyburn, 104 Ark. 298 , and McRaven v. Clancy, 115 Ark. 163 . … Conway v. Commissioners of Board of Improvement Dist. No. 20, ante, p. 487, and cases cited. The decree is in all things correct, and it is therefore affirmed.

Mitchell v. State

86 Ark. 486 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 1908

Driggs v. Norwood, 50 Ark. 42 ; Roberts v. Bodman-Pettit Lumber Co, 84 Ark, 227. Numerous objections are urged against the admission of testimony, but we find that in many instances exceptions were not properly saved. … Co. v. Brown, 75 Ark. 257 . The court limited the time for argument of counsel to fifteen minutes to the side, and this is assigned as error.

Watts v. Commercial Printing Co.

177 Ark. 525 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 11, 1928

In the case of Whipple v. Tuxworth, 81 Ark. 391 , 99 S. W. 86 , Mr. … Meadors v. State, 171 Ark. 705 , 285 S. W. 380 ; Pearrow v. State, 146 Ark. 182 , 225 S. W. 311 .

Ark. Racing Commission v. Hot Springs Kennel Club, Inc.

232 Ark. 504 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 3, 1960

In the case of Merchants & Planters Bank v. Fitzgerald, 61 Ark. 605 , 33 S. … W. 1041 ; Dixie Downs, Inc. v. Arkansas Racing Commission, 219 Ark. 356 , 242 S. W. 2d 132 , and North Hill Memorial Gardens v. Hicks, 230 Ark. 787 , 326 S. W. 2d 797 .

McLaughlin, Trustee v. Lovett

204 Ark. 708 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 13, 1942

Mallory v. Hiles, 61 Ky. (4 Met.) 53 ; Kennedy v. Palmer, 72 Mass. 316 .” … (Arnold, et al. v. The United States, 9 Cranch 104 , 3 L. Ed. 671 .” The Supreme Court of the United States in Lapeyre v. United States, 84 U. S. 606 , 21 L.

Arkansas Central Railroad v. State

72 Ark. 252 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 27, 1904

Said boards shall be elevated so as not to obstruct travel, and to be easily seen by travelers; and on each side of said board shall be painted, in capital letters of at least thd size of nine inches each, the words 'Railroad … Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. Russell, 115 Ill. 52, 57 ; Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v.