Case law

Jackson v. Cadillac Cowboy, Inc.

337 Ark. 24 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 18, 1999

Ann. § 9:2800.1 (West 1997) immunizes alcoholic beverage vendors who serve alcohol to persons who are legally of age. … Clearly, the question of who is intoxicated becomes illusive.

United States Fidelty & Guaranty Co. v. Smith

252 Ark. 556 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1972

The plaintiff’s proof having established a prima facie case, the insurer then has the burden of showing that the loss falls within the exemption contained in the policy, that being an affirmative defense. … Here the witness Tucker, upon being closely questioned with respect to his qualifications, was unable to cite any training or experience that clearly qualified him as an expert with respect to the question at issue.

Lemaire v. Henderson

174 Ark. 936 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 3, 1927

Section 2 provides that, upon the petition of not less than one hundred qualified electors of any county in this State, the county hoard of education shall, within thirty days, call an election to be held in said county, … The power given to the Legislature to classify school districts in any reasonable manner is no longer an open question in this State, and a legitimate classification has been upheld generally, unless it has clearly gone beyond

Maxwell v. State

259 Ark. 86 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 19, 1976

The names called to be qualified as jurors in the case were apparently drawn at random from this list and the jury chosen from 148 names so drawn. … It was established on cross-examination that she saw no one other than this employee near the scene before the officers arrived.

Ellis v. Hall

219 Ark. 869 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 21, 1952

The first forty names on a sheet of fifty may have been signed in good faith by qualified electors, and the canvasser may have forged the last ten names to complete the sheet. … Thus, it seems to me, the court has clearly indicated what our decision should be on this issue.

Nash v. Hendricks

369 Ark. 60 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 22, 2007

The Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2671 , waived the traditional immunity from suit of the United States in its sovereign capacity. … In a series of decisions now known as the Feres doctrine, the United States Supreme Court established a judicially-created exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity in the FTCA, holding that the United States “is not

Matter of Interest on Lawer's Trust

283 Ark. 252 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 17, 1984

At that time, we determined that the establishment of an IOLTA program, while a commendable and worthwhile objective, could not be approved, inasmuch as the element of client consent was not present. … The rules mandate that clients' funds held by an attorney must be segregated into a clearly labeled trust account unless they are fees and advances for costs and expenses.

Anderson v. State

200 Ark. 516 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 29, 1940

The rule is tlmt the corpus delicti or asportation is shown by the slightest removal; complete severance of the owner’s possession and actual possession by the wrongdoer establishes asportation. Reynolds v. … In other words, the facts in this case bring it clearly within the cases of Corley v. State, supra, and Meyer v.

Sturdy v. Hall, Secretary of State

204 Ark. 785 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 12, 1942

The details of the act need not be recited as its general purpose is clearly stated. 2. We come now to a consideration of the sufficiency of the number of qualified signers on the petition. … Now it may be conceded that undisputed testimony establishes the fact that names appear on the petition not signed by the party whose name appears; but if this were not done with the wrongful intent and with conniyance between

Populist Party of Arkansas v. Chesterfield

359 Ark. 58 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 1, 2004

The trial court wrote: The General Assembly has established many requirements for “political parties” with respect to their participation in the election process. … The petition used here by the Populist Party, and its candidates, clearly met this requirement Further, there is no specific requirement that the petitioners declare their intention to actually vote for the candidate on the

Victor Bernard Williams, M.D. v. Baptist Health D/B/A Baptist Health Medical Center

598 S.W.3d 487 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 2020

The standard of review on appeal from a bench trial is whether the circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Hartness v. … Hearnsberger’s assertion of statutory immunity under Arkansas Code Annotated section 17-80-103 (Repl. 2010). Further, he alleges generally that Dr.

Jenkins v. Tobin

31 Ark. 306 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1876

the proofs in the case by the party seeking to establish the will unless it sufficiently appears from the evidence by the plaintiffs.” … This instruction was clearly erroneous; whatever may have been the decision of other courts, this court has so repeatedly held that a party who seeks to set aside a will which has once been established in the Probate Court

Jacobs v. Yates

342 Ark. 243 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 5, 2000

She counterclaimed, challenging Jacobs’s qualifications as well, and the circuit court found that neither party was qualified to stand for the position. … The burden is clearly placed on the appealing party to provide both a record and abstract sufficient for appellate review. Oliver v. Washington County, 328 Ark. 61 , 940 SW. 2d 884 (1997).

Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc.

308 S.W.3d 135 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 30, 2009

(c)(1) Except as expressly stated in this section, nothing in this section shall eliminate or diminish any defenses or immunities which currently exist. (2) Assessments of percentages of fault of nonparties shall be used … Clearly the law modifying joint and several liability, Ark.Code Ann. § 16-55-201, defines the right of a party, a defendant, and is substantive.

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. State

86 Ark. 412 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 1908

Section 2 of article 4 of the Constitution of the United States provides that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” … laws and the policing of harbo'rs; the improvement and bridging of navigable streams (subject to an overseeing by Congressional legislation that the improvement does not interfere with interstate and foreign commerce); the establishment

Holly v. Hobbs

2015 Ark. 467 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 10, 2015

This decision, based on a review of all the evidence, is not clearly erroneous as there was no double-jeopardy violation in his sentencing. … , or public interest or a lesser kind of culpable mental state suffices to establish the offense’s commission).

Briggs v. State

236 Ark. 596 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 13, 1963

The three cases involve separate incidents at separate retail establishments. … There is no privilege or immunity to trespass on private property.

Durden v. Sebastian County

73 Ark. 305 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 10, 1904

There shall be established in each county in this State an office to be styled the recorder’s office, which shall be kept at the seat of justice.” … This qualifying clause is not to be found in the provision with reference to the clerk being ex officio recorder.

Bedell v. Williams

386 S.W.3d 493 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 23, 2012

Williams also relied on a LRHC internal policy to establish a duty as to Bedell. … Clearly, a legal entity such as a hospital or nursing home cannot literally give testimony against itself.

Velvin v. Kent

198 Ark. 267 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 8, 1939

Section 3 of art. 13 of the Constitution provides that "No county seat shall be established or changed without the consent of a majority of the qualified voters of the county to be affected by such change," and 2398, Pope's … If 2398, Pope's Digest, is so construed, it is clearly unconstitutional, as the section of the Constitution above quoted permits only "qualified voters" to participate in the election and to have their votes counted for removal