Case law

Mays v. Cole

374 Ark. 532 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 2008

Section 3-8-204 of the Local Option Code establishes rules on petition procedure and section 3-8-204(e) provides: Any person who is a qualified elector of the State of Arkansas and who is a resident and registered voter of … Section 9(c)(1) of amendment 51 clearly indicates that a qualified applicant is not registered until the permanent registrar “receives” and “acknowledges” a “legible and complete voter registration application.” Ark.

Arkansas State Racing Commission v. Sayler

249 Ark. 913 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 1, 1971

It clearly found, on the evidence before it, that Jockey Vernon Sayler had a shocking device in his possession with intention to use it in the race. … This added provision is the only part of the commission’s order that is any way qualified or conditional. The commission has a difficult task and a heavy responsibility to the patrons of racing establishments.

Sanders v. State

300 Ark. 25 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 18, 1989

According to that order, the jury panel was selected by the use of a computer using random numbers to select names of qualified voters of Garland County. … Here, the appellant clearly did not meet his burden of proof. The record is void of any statistical information to show the racial make-up of the community or of the 400 jurors on the four jury panels. See Thomas v.

State v. Johnson

26 Ark. 281 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1870

It has already been very clearly intimated that this court would hear the facts in this proceeding and dispose of the case on its merits. … The fact of election of respondent being conceded, the only thing at issue in the case is established.

Martin v. Frazier

291 Ark. 120 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 26, 1987

Thereafter, the qualified electors of the new district shall elect successor members from each of the former districts as prescribed by the agreement. … Section 450(e) clearly provides that the qualified electors of the new district shall elect successor members.

Rhea v. State

226 Ark. 581 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 18, 1956

It is contended that this section confers immunity against subsequent prosecution and effectively destroys any possibility that the witness’s forced admissions may ever prove to be incriminating. … Here the proof falls a good deal short of establishing a prior conviction. There is admittedly no written record of such a conviction by any court. The State attempted to prove by the county judge, C. 0.

Whittaker v. Carter

238 Ark. 1074 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 8, 1965

Therefore, instead of Act 3 being an attempt by the Legislature to evade the provisions of the Voter Registration Amendment, No. 51, we think the Act is clearly compatible with the manifest purpose and intent of the Amendment … ACT 3 OF 1965 AN ACT to Establish the Date for Holding General Elections in Cities Having a Commission Form of Government; to Establish the Date on Which Officials Elected at Such General Elections Shall Take Office; and

State v. Jacks

243 Ark. 77 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 25, 1967

The case at bar clearly cannot be classified as a peonage statute. It is more comparable to our law making it an offense to execute an overdraft which likewise contains the presumption clause. Ark. Stat. … We can quickly dispose of the argument that if one violates a state law of this nature and before prosecution is adjudged a bankrupt, he gains immunity from the violation.

Jonathan Walker v. Arkansas Department of Correction, Division of Correction; And Dexter Payne, in His Official Capacity as Director

2026 Ark. 95 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 7, 2026

Declaratory relief may be granted if it has been established that (1) there is a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking relief has a legal interest … But Walker’s petition should first be dismissed because sovereign immunity bars his one and only claim: a declaratory-judgment action against state actors.1 To the extent Walker brought any federal claims within his petition

Kempson v. Goss

69 Ark. 451 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 1901

principles to the facts, if it could be said that appellant, so long as he lived with appellees and kept them as a part of his family, stood to them in loco parentis, this certainly was not the case after he left them and established … The purpose not to be so treated was as clearly manifested by the appellees in the institution of this suit for the use and occupation of the premises.

Rineco Chemical Industries, Inc. v. Weiss

344 Ark. 118 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 8, 2001

in manufacturing articles of commerce and, therefore, qualify for an exemption under state law. … Rineco has broken down the statutory definition into five factors that must be established to qualify for the manufacturing exemption.

Kilgore v. Mullenax

520 S.W.3d 670 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 2017

The arbitrator established the following facts by a written opinion. … Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), is all but immune from judicial review.

Lafargue v. Waggoner

189 Ark. 757 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 8, 1934

He alleges that plaintiff is a resident of, and qualified elector in Arkansas County, and is and was at the time of the voting, qualified to hold the office of sheriff and collector. … It is never granted unless the inferior tribunal has clearly exceeded its authority, and the party applying for it has no other protection against the wrong that will be done by such usurpation.

International Paper Co. v. Clark County Circuit Court

375 Ark. 127 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 20, 2008

VanWagoner clearly states that it is the Commission that has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the facts that establish jurisdiction. … This court has stated that where encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Commission is clear, a writ of prohibition is clearly warranted. W. Waste Indus. v.

Weems v. Anderson

257 Ark. 376 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 9, 1974

Article 7, Section 24, of the Arkansas Constitution provides for the election of a prosecuting attorney by qualified electors of each circuit and quite logically provides that the person, learned in law, who is elected shall … This constitutional provision clearly has no application to the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Blunt v. Cartwright

342 Ark. 662 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 16, 2000

This evidence is insufficient to establish the child’s domicile in Jefferson County. Accordingly, we affirm the determination of venue in Phillips County. II. … Based on the testimony presented below, we cannot say that the probate courts decision was clearly erroneous. Pursuant to Ark.

Pledger v. C.B. Form Co.

316 Ark. 22 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 1994

The taxpayer must establish an entitlement to an exemption from taxation beyond a reasonable doubt. Pledger v. Baldor Int’l, 309 Ark. 47 , 827 S.W.2d 646 (1992). … Even so, the forms in this case clearly come within the language of the mold and die exception, whether they be classed as initial purchases or replacement molds.

First State Building & Loan Ass'n v. Arkansas Savings & Loan Association Board

261 Ark. 482 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 11, 1977

As the Rule clearly states, the Statement of the Case to appear in Appellant’s Brief is to be made without argument. … When we review the findings of The Board, we find the evidence to be clearly substantial.

Hill v. Patterson

313 Ark. 322 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 1993

However, Thomas is clearly distinguishable in that the claim involved a corporation which later merged with the corporation by which the claimant was employed. … As to working or managing partner, whether or not they are co-employees, they are also employers, and in that capacity have been accorded immunity. Id. at § 72.24(c).

Underwood v. White

27 Ark. 382 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 15, 1872

Underwood, county judge, as piembers of the Board of Equalization of real property for said county, to allow him to be sworn and qualified as a member thereof, and to sit and act with, and as a member of such board. … If, therefore, the appellee were the assessor of Phillips county, he was clearly entitled to the privileges sought by his petition ; and if his title to the office were undisputed, the proceedings in the court were proper