Case law

Watkins v. State

362 S.W.3d 910 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 1, 2010

Fisher v. State, 364 Ark. 216 , 217 S.W.3d 117 (2005); see Howard, 367 Ark. at 31 , 238 S.W.3d at 35 . The pro se appellant receives no special consideration on appeal. See Brown v. … State v. Brown, 2009 Ark. 202 , 307 S.W.3d 587 ; Huls v. State, 301 Ark. 572, 576 , 785 S.W.2d 467, 469 (1990) (per curiam).

Armour v. City of Fort Smith

117 Ark. 214 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 22, 1915

In speaking -of the duty of the cities under this -section, 5675, in the case of Browne v. … Improvement District No. 1 of Wynne v. Brown, 86 Ark. 61 .

Ross v. Daniels

266 Ark. 1056 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 19, 1979

On May 21, 1979, the Board of Review affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. … See: Edwards v. Metro Title Co., 133 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1961); Utica Mutual Insurance Company, et al v. Pioda, 90 Ga. App. 593 , 83 S.E.2d 627 (1954).

Silkman v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society

474 S.W.3d 74 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 12, 2015

Brown v. … Poff v. Brown, 374 Ark. 453, 288 S.W.3d 620 (2008).

Hankins v. Layne

48 Ark. 544 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1886

Hanf v. Whittington, 42; Ark., 491 ; McGaughy v. Brown, 46 ib., 25. 3. Jurisdiction of probate court. … (McGaughy v. Brown, 46 Ark., 25.)

City of Little Rock v. Williams

206 Ark. 861 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 1944

These consisted of the removal of a beaver board partition at 1922 Wright avenue and cutting a few feet off of the top of another beaver board partition and moving it forward a few feet. … Board of Zoning Appeals, 177 Md. 426 , 9 Atl. 2d 747, that the question of an existing use is not to be determined as of the date of the passage of the ordinance, and the case of DeFelice v.

Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. Hoover

182 Ark. 1065 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 12, 1931

His son was employed in 1923 and 1924 and earned $65 and his board. … Co. v. Boback, 71 Ark. 427 , 75 S.W. 473 ; American Ins. Co. v. Mordic, 168 Ark. 795 , 271 S.W. 460 ; United Order of Good Samaritans v. Lomax, 172 Ark. 330 , 288 S.W. 709 ; St. L. I. M. S. R. Co. v.

City of Fort Smith v. Driggers

305 Ark. 409 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 6, 1991

Bradley v. Bruce, supra. 2. … Citing Worth v.

State Ex Rel. Independence County v. Tad Screen Advertising Co.

199 Ark. 205 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 13, 1939

This conclusion is supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Browning v. Waycross, 233 U. S. 16 , 34 S. Ct. 578 , 58 L. Ed. 828 , and General Railway Signal Co. v. Virginia, 246 U. … The situation is controlled by the same principle as were the cases of Browning v. Waycross, 233 U. S. 16 , 34 S. Ct. 578 , 58 L. Ed. 828 ; General Railway Signal Co. v. Virginia, 246 U. S. 500 , 38 S. Ct. 360 , 62 L.

Rugless v. State

97 Ark. 152 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 2, 1911

Brown v. State, 28 Ark. 126 .

Hurley v. Gus Blass Company

191 Ark. 917 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 2, 1935

Some of the floor boards were cracked, and there were raised joints in the floor, the ends of some of the boards being raised higher than the boards adjoining them. … T. v. Sanders, Tex. Civ. App., 138 S. W. 1181 -1184. Appellee’s requested instruction No. 2 was not inherently erroneous.

State v. Jones

321 Ark. 451 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 17, 1995

See Frazier v. … Newbern, Brown, and Roaf, JJ., concur in the opinion except for the reference to Doby v. State. See Brown v. State, 321 Ark. 413 , released this date.

Williams v. State

47 Ark. 230 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1886

State v. Cadle, 19 Ark., 613; State v. Hazle, 20 Id., 156. But the second count seems to be good in form and substance, and is sufficient to uphold the verdict and judgment. Brown v. State, 10 Ark., 607; Howard v. … Lacefield v. State, 34 Ark., 275; Johnson v. State, 36 Id., 242. Affirmed.

Hopson v. Hellums

108 Ark. 460 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 2, 1913

Plaintiff alleged that the said contract with Hahn & Carter was beyond the power of the board, and that the issue of said bonds was wrongful, and he prayed that the said board and the Bank of Pine Bluff be required to recall … Abbott on Public Securities, § § 46 and 48; Morrilton Waterworks Improvement District v. Earl, 71 Ark. 4 ; Watkins v. Griffith, 59 Ark. 344 .

McDaniel v. State

337 Ark. 431 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 6, 1999

In United States v. … Acevedo left the apartment carrying a brown paper bag which he placed in his trunk.

Cannor v. Cooper

245 Ark. 386 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 21, 1968

In Lewis v. … Brown and Fogleman, JJ., dissent. There were other passengers in some of the cars, but only two are parties to this litigation. Houston v. Adams, 239 Ark. 346 , 389 S.W. 2d 872 ; Burton v.

Vogler v. O'NEAL

226 Ark. 1007 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 26, 1956

We said in Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Arkansas v. Adcox, 189 Ark. 610 , 74 S. … R. 2d 203, in which is cited with approval, the case of Ross v.

Combs v. Cheek

283 Ark. 69 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1984

The board refused and appellee filed suit for declaratory judgment. The trial court ordered the board to include the lump sum payment for sick leave in determining the amount of the retirement benefit. We reverse. … Board of Trustees of the State Police Retirement System v. Halsell, 271 Ark. 815 , 610 S.W.2d 881 (1981). Reversed.

Johnson v. Newman

168 Ark. 836 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 11, 1925

Minor v. Mapes, 102 Ark. 351 ; Carter v. Brown, 136 Ark. 23 ; Pine Bluff Co. v. Whitlaw, 147 Ark. 152 ; Wisconsin & Arkansas Lbr. Co. v. Brady, 157 Ark. 449 . … Norton v. Hall, 149 Ark. 428 ; Volentine v. Wyatt, 164 Ark. 172 . We have also discarded the doctrine of imputed negligence (Carter v. Brown, supra; Miller v.

Hoehler v. W. B. Worthen Co.

154 Ark. 444 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 3, 1922

Penzel v. Brookmire, 51 Ark. 105 . … The only case which might appear to be in point is First National Bank v.