Case law

Perry v. State

371 Ark. 170 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 4, 2007

Under § 5-1-110(b), an offense is a lesser-included offense if it: (1) “[i]s established by proof of the same or less than all of the elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged,” (2) “[c]onsists … Clearly, our reference to “against the victim” was not made with respect to a specific victim deliberately or purposefully killed, but generally referred to the person who died as a result of the defendant’s perpetration

Brown v. State

321 Ark. 413 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 17, 1995

Under those circumstances, the witness was not qualified to offer an opinion concerning the identity of the voice on the telephone. … Jones is clearly different, since there, Jones never denied shooting the victim.

Niagara Fire Insurance v. Boon

76 Ark. 153 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 24, 1905

Objections are made to much testimony: to some because elicited by leading questions; to other because opinion evidence was admitted from witnesses not properly qualified as experts; and for some other reasons. … Certainly, it cannot be said that it clearly appears that it was the result of fraud, mistake, misfeasance or malfeasance of the appraiser or the umpire.

Ligon v. Rees

364 S.W.3d 7 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 13, 2010

F.l was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … Crockett, Rubens, and AUSA Volpe signed the immunity agreement on March 10, 2004.

Baker Refrigeration Systems, Inc. v. Weiss

360 Ark. 388 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 27, 2005

We note at the outset that we review a trial court’s decision in a tax case de novo, but we will not disturb the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Barclay v. … A trial court acquires no jurisdiction where the suit is one against the state and there is no waiver of sovereign immunity. Id.

Springdale Winnelson Co. v. Rakes

337 Ark. 154 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 25, 1999

Even though the seller accepts the consumer’s representations that the transaction is exempt from tax, seller shall be hable for the tax if the transaction does not, in fact, qualify for an exemption. … , or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

Alexander v. Davis

346 Ark. 310 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 25, 2001

The judge’s reliance on Patton is clearly misplaced. As noted by the appellants, the Patton case demonstrates the very worst in Arkansas reconstruction politics when fraud and intimidation of voters were rampant. … That provision clearly reflects that it applies to election-contest proceedings as authorized in Ark. Code Ann. §§ 7-5-801 , et seq. (Repl. 2000).

Ark. Cmty. Corr. v. Barnes

542 S.W.3d 841 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 12, 2018

Such an interpretation clearly conflicts with other provisions of the constitution which is a fact the majority conveniently chose to ignore in Andrews . … In actuality, the legislature's establishment of the Claims Commission appears to be precisely what article 5, section 20 was intended to prohibit.

Perry v. State

277 Ark. 357 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1982

When the above answer was given, a proper foundation had not been established. … XXL THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN QUALIFYING THE JURY FOR THE DEATH PENALTY. Before the voir dire of the prospective jurors the appellant moved the court to prohibit the state from “death qualifying” the panel.

Townsell v. State

2014 Ark. 227 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 2014

We will not reverse a circuit court’s decision granting or denying postconviction relief  Cite as 2014 Ark. 227 unless that decision is clearly erroneous. Pankau v. … This is not the test for determining whether an offense qualifies as a lesser-included offense. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-110(b).

Miller v. State

240 Ark. 340 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 1966

To admit expert testimony deduced from a scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is to be made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which … Admission of the unsubstantiated, speculative testimony on probabilities was clearly erroneous. See Little v. George Feed & Supply Co., 233 Ark. 78 , 342 S.

Jewell v. Fletcher

377 S.W.3d 176 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 29, 2010

Fletcher admitted that he had talked with certain people but denied having any type of immunity agreements. … Clearly Sims took steps to seek a stay.

Dunkin v. Citizens Bank of Jonesboro

291 Ark. 588 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 6, 1987

The courts, therefore, have insisted that the privilege be validly taken, asserted in a timely manner, and limited to information that clearly falls within its ambit.” Id. … The New York court explained: Thus, a claimant of the privilege is not immunized from answering a question upon his mere declaration that it would tend to incriminate him — “his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard

Gordon v. State

539 S.W.3d 586 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 8, 2018

Fact Qualifying During Closing Argument Demonstrating Hostility Toward the Defendant For his fifth point on appeal, Gordon contends that his trial counsel was ineffective by fact qualifying during closing arguments, demonstrating … While Gordon's arguments on appeal are similar to the arguments made in the petition, Gordon has clearly changed the scope of his arguments, including both his claims for "fact qualifying" and hostility, from making the claims

Brown v. Frenken

87 Ark. 160 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 13, 1908

Brown, who states to the court that he is the regularly qualified and appointed trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of George W. Harden and A. M. … It is clearly established by the authorities supra that a party aggrieved by a judgment has a right of appeal, though he is not a party to the record.

Rikard v. State

354 Ark. 345 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 9, 2003

We ultimately concluded that the wildlife officer’s conduct did not violate the appellants’ constitutional rights; thus, he was entitled to qualified immunity from appellants’ civil-rights claims. … Thornton, J., not participating. 1 This court did so as part of its inquiry into whether the wildlife officer was entitled to qualified immunity.

State, Department of Career Education, Division of Rehabilitation Services v. Means

426 S.W.3d 922 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 25, 2013

According to Means, once John Doe completed his training, he was no longer qualified for services at the center. … Then subsection (2)(A)(ii) follows and lists persons who qualify as an “appropriate authority.”

State v. 26 Gaming MacHines

356 Ark. 47 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 5, 2004

Sertell, however, denied that nudity was the type of reward that qualified as an element of gambling. … Moreover, this court has never held that an intangible reward, such as viewing nudity, qualifies as a reward for gambling purposes.

Fugett v. State

208 Ark. 979 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1945

This ownership is recognized and established both by the title and the provisions of the act. … Courts are not authorized to strike down a law enacted by the General Assembly unless it clearly appears that the law contravenes some provision of the constitution; and, in case of’doubt as to the constitutionality of a

Rhodes v. Driver

69 Ark. 606 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 2, 1901

Driver, was duly elected clerk of the circuit court of Mississippi county at the general election held oh the 3d day of September, 1900; that he was duly commissioned, qualified, and is now acting as such clerk; that J. … “Ho principle of the law of injunctions, and perhaps no doctrine of equity jurisprudence, is more definitely fixed or more clearly established than that courts of equity will not interfere by injunction to determine questions