Case law

London & Lancashire Fire Insurance v. Ludwig

86 Ark. 581 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 15, 1908

In Commercial Fire Insurance Co. v. … In Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 60 , it is said: “The capital stock of an incorporated company is a fund set apart for the payment of its debts.

Jordan v. Muse

88 Ark. 587 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 4, 1909

Brearley v. Norris, 23 Ark. 169 ; Hicks v. Brown, 38 Ark. 469 . It is further contended that the judgment was a joint one against appellant and one Nelson, and that he could not be sued, on it without joining Nelson. … Peel v. January, 35 Ark. 331 ; Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 480 ; McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312 ; Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290 .

Turner v. State

109 Ark. 332 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 7, 1913

Smith v. State, 74 Ark. 397 . … Brown v. State, 108 Ark. 336 . No error was committed and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

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

166 Ark. 246 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 24, 1924

Upon tire authority of Lamborn v. County Commissioners, 97 U. S. 181 , and Railroad Company v. Commissioners, 98 U. … Board of Directors, supra, and the rule announced in that case therefore applies to the payment made by the railroad company in the instant case. Our attention is called to the case of Dickinson v.

Jack Wood Construction Co. v. Ford

258 Ark. 47 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 5, 1975

Jordan v. Muse, 88 Ark. 587 , 115 S.W. 162 ; Murphy v. Myar, 95 Ark. 32 , 128 S.W. 359 . But the principal on the bond was not a necessary party. National Surety Corp. v. … Jur. 2d 616, Parties § 178; Allman v. Potts, 140 Mont. 312 , 371 P. 2d 11 , 92 A.L.R. 2d 1104 (1962). See also, Gorham v. Hall, supra; Savage v. Cowen, 33 S.W. 2d 433 , (Tex. Com. App., 1930).

Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Price

182 Ark. 801 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 1, 1930

the same level, and that said boards shall be elevated so as not to obstruct travel and to be easily seen by travelers, “and on each side of the said boards shall be printed, in capital letters of at least the size of nine … Co. v. Aven, 61 Ark. 141 , 32 S. W. 500 ; St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Ferrell, 84 Ark. 270 , 105 S. W. 263 .

Howell v. Hogins

37 Ark. 110 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1881

Hawkins v. Filkins, 24 Ark., 286; Hendry v. Cline, 29 Ark., 414; Berry v. Bellows, 30 Ark., 198; State, use, &c. v. Brown, Ib., 761; Texas v. White, 7 Wall, 700; City Richmond v. Smith, 15 Wall, 429; Horn v. … Daniel v.

Broadway-Main Street Bridge District v. Mortgage Loan & Insurance Agency, Inc.

195 Ark. 390 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 17, 1938

In Earle Road Improvement District No. 6 v. Johnson, 145 Ark. 438 , 224 S. … Thereafter, the board,, at its. discretion, may order an annual “ adjustment or reassessment of benefits to be made by the assessors.” It seems clear that this is a discretion vested in the hoard.

Bryant v. Ryburn

206 Ark. 305 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 8, 1943

Union Indemnity Co. v. Benton Co. Lbr. Co., 179 Ark. 752 , 18 S. W. 2d 327 . … Dist. v. Hunt, 166 Ark. 62 , 265 S. W. 517 ; Tri-County Highway Imp. Dist. v. Vincennes Bridge Co., 170 Ark. 22 , 278 S. W. 627 ; Stevens v. Shull, 179 Ark. 766 , 19 S. W. 2d 1018 , 64 A. L. R. 1258.

Jefferson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

356 Ark. 647 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 8, 2004

In Battishill v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 78 Ark. … Brown testified that D.J. told her that she wanted the termination to go forward. Additionally, D.J. told Ms.

Davis v. Johnston

251 Ark. 1078 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 28, 1972

If the well should prove to be a dry hole, Johnston and Weiser-Brown would lose their investment. … See Reeve v. Ladies’ Bldg. Assn., 56 Ark. 335 , 19 S. W. 917 , 18 L. R. A. 129 (1892).

Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Arkansas Sheriff's Boys' Ranch

280 Ark. 53 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 5, 1983

In the case of Brown v. … I think the claim in the Brown case for punitive damages was substantially like the one made in this case, and the only difference would be that the statement made in the Brown case was made at a civic club meeting, and in

St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Humbert

101 Ark. 532 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 1911

Jones v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 96 Ark. 366 . This the plaintiff has not shown. The engineer’s testimony is perfectly reasonable, and is uncontradicted. The jury had no right to arbitrarily reject it. Railway v. … Co. v. Landers, 67 Ark. 514 ; Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 80 Ark. 396 .

Wood v. Wood

100 Ark. 370 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 23, 1911

Womack v. Womack, 73 Ark. 281 ; Ward v. Ward, 36 Ark. 586 . … Gaty v. Holcomb, 44 Ark. 216 ; Brown v. Wyandotte & S. E. Ry. Co., 68 Ark. 134 ; Mooney v. Tyler, 68 Ark. 314 ; Letchworth v. Vaughan, 77 Ark. 305 ; Sulek v. McWilliams, 72 Ark. 67 . See also Boggianna v.

Sturdy v. Hall, Secretary of State

201 Ark. 38 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 14, 1940

McNary, District Attorney v. … I do not insist here that as to the Browns either name is valid.

Moffett v. Texarkana Forest Park Paving, Sewer & Water District No. 2

181 Ark. 474 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 31, 1930

The act has been held to be constitutional and valid by this court in the following cases: Moyer v. Altheimer, 168 Ark. 271 , 270 S. W. 91 ; Newton v. Altheimer, 170 Ark. 376 , 280 S. W. 641 ; Reed v. Paving Dist. … The statute provides the procedure to correct the assessment by hearing before the board of commissioners and the assessor as a board of equalization.

Wilson v. Rebsamen Ins., Inc.

330 Ark. 687 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 4, 1997

In Neal v. … Likewise, in Brown v.

Fischel v. Mills

55 Ark. 344 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 23, 1892

Baldwin v. Scoggin, 15 Ark., supra; Ill. Central R. Co. v. Bosworth, 133 U. S., 92 . Say the Supreme Court of the U. S., in Knote v. U. S., 95 U. … See too Commonwealth v. Shick, 61 Pa. St., 495; Cope v. Com., 28 id., 297 ; Brown v. U. S., McCahon (Kas.), 229; In re Flournoy, 1 Kelly (Ga.), 606; Ill. Central R. Co. v. Bosworth, 133 U. S., sup.

Hicks v. State

324 Ark. 450 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 20, 1996

Oliver v. State, 322 Ark. 8 , 907 S.W.2d 706 (1995). The trial court did not rule on the motion for new trial. … See, e.g., Brown v. State, 321 Ark. 282 , 900 S.W.2d 954 (1995) (per curiam). Here, the attorneys do not admit fault.

Casey Reed v. Ken Yang; Grant County Board of Election Commissioners; Saline County Board of Election Commissioners; Geral Harrison, in His Capacity as Grant County and Circuit Clerk; Doug Curtis, in His Capacity as Saline County Clerk; Joseph Wood, in His Capacity as Chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas; And Cole Jester, in His Capacity as Arkansas Secretary of State

2026 Ark. 32 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2026

HONORABLE CATHLEEN V. … KEN YANG; GRANT COUNTY COMPTON, JUDGE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; SALINE AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL; COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION REVERSED AND REMANDED