Case law

Dillon v. State

317 Ark. 384 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 20, 1994

This testimony clearly satisfies the requirements of forcible compulsion that the victim experience “bodily impact, restraint or confinement, or the threat thereof.” … Vowell’s testimony had he been qualified as an expert.

Monsanto Company v. Arkansas State Plant Board; And Arkansas State Plant Board Members in Their Official Capacities: Walter "Bruce" Alford; Kyle Baltz; Russellblack; Russell Bragg; Robert Campbell; Marty Eaton; John Fricke; Terry Fuller; Greg Hay; Jerry Hyde; Brad Koen; Matthew Marsh; Mark Morgan; Dennie Stokes; Sam Stuckey; Barry Walls; And Dr. Ken North

622 S.W.3d 166 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 6, 2021

Arguing further, Monsanto contends that Regulation 7 is unconstitutional even if it is evaluated under a less stringent “clearly excessive” test. … Simply put, Monsanto’s pleadings do not contain facts sufficient to establish an actual, present controversy.

Fletcher v. Scorza

359 S.W.3d 413 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2010

A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. See id. … In Freeman, we rejected Freeman’s argument that “the natural-parent preference must prevail unless it is established that the natural parent is unfit,” observing that “[Stamps v.

Scott v. Consolidated Health Management, Inc.

297 Ark. 601 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 13, 1989

Third, it is argued that the decision is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. 1. Jurisdiction a. … However, we also wrote: “Since appellee submitted its application during the effective dates of Act 593, it qualified for the exception to the permit of approval requirement.”

Bill Paschall, Individually and on Behalf of Arkansans for Patient Access, a Ballot Question Committee v. John Thurston, in His Capacity as Arkansas Secretary of State, and Jim Bell, Individually and on Behalf of Protect Arkansas Kids, a Ballot Question Committee, Intervenor

699 S.W.3d 352 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 21, 2024

Given these definitions, a wide range of groups or people can qualify as “the sponsor.” … One need not be a “qualifying patient,” and one need not have a “qualifying medical condition.” Possession and use of one ounce of marijuana would be legal for all purposes.

Diamante, LLC v. Dye

430 S.W.3d 710 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 5, 2013

The circuit court also found that the proposed class exceeded 330 property owners and that the proposed class was clearly defined and unambiguous. … Whether class counsel is qualified and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class is addressed by Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).

Gray's Butane Wholesale, Inc. v. Arkansas Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board

250 Ark. 69 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 1, 1971

The Act clearly provides to the contrary. It is submitted, however, that compliance with the mandatory provisions forms a solid base for a safe operation. … First, as previously indicated, it erroneously shifts onto the Board the burden of establishing that the proposed retail operation would be detrimental to public safety.

Weston v. State

265 Ark. 58 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 1979

It can be determined from appellant’s brief that he is clearly urging he has been punished for exercising his rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. … The recused judge granted immunity to a witness before the Grand Jury, denied a motion made by appellant, met with the Grand Jury, and accepted their report.

Bollinger v. Watson

187 Ark. 1044 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 16, 1933

Having in mind the principles stated in the cases reviewed and recognizing the cardinal canon of construction that a statute will be upheld unless clearly within constitutional inhibition and where that question is doubtful … It is argued that the act deprives the appellants of substantial property rights; that they had established their places of business without the limits of the border towns and within adjacent territory, and the practical

Walnut Grove School District No. 6 v. County Board of Education

204 Ark. 354 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 25, 1942

Act 144 is entitled, “An act to establish a minimum length of school term, and for other purposes.” This act was considered and construed in the case of Stobaugh v. County Board of Education, 182 Ark. 675 , 32 S. … In other words, the administrative construction generally should be clearly wrong before it is overturned.

Frye v. State

313 S.W.3d 10 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 5, 2009

In sum, argues Appellant, the alleged incident and excitement had clearly ended that evening by the time the family had moved into their new apartment when the victim made the statement. … Thus, “[o]nce the admissibility of character evidence is established under Rule 404, Rule 405 establishes the methods of proof which may be utilized.” Smith v. State, 316 Ark. 407, 411 , 872 S.W.2d 848, 845 (1994).

Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Morgan

364 Ark. 358 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 8, 2005

Specifically, OCSE suggests that the rulings are clearly erroneous because dismissals with prejudice are void in paternity actions, pursuant to the rulings in Davis v. … That statute provides procedures for challenging the procedures or results of a paternity test: (5) (A) A written report of the test results prepared by the duly qualified expert conducting the test or by a duly qualified

Sarah Sanders, in Her Official Capacity as Governor of Arkansas; Lindsay Wallace, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Corrections; And the Arkansas Department of Corrections v. Arkansas Board of Corrections; And Benny Magness, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Arkansas Board of Corrections

2025 Ark. 102 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 5, 2025

We conclude that the circuit court’s factual findings that there would be irreparable harm were not clearly erroneous. … .1 Even if that was not so, the Board would still lose because it failed to show irreparable harm—a necessary element to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction.2 Therefore, I also join the other dissenting opinion

Farmers Bank v. Fuqua Homes, Inc.

259 Ark. 38 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 22, 1975

Ann. § 27-619 (Supp. 1973) to establish venue in Ashley County. … Since we determine a contract action is involved, appellee, admittedly a foreign corporation, clearly falls within the provisions of Ark. Stat.

State v. Harris

3 Ark. 570 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1841

office was a member and whose place had become and was vacated, and continued vacant at the time of his election by the board, either by his death, resignation or absence from the United States, non-acceptance, refusal to qualify … of the subscribers as by the final determination of the board of managers were admitted to be entitled to stock, became ipso facto stockholders, and were thereupon respectively entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities

Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners v. Pulaski County Election Commission

437 S.W.3d 80 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 16, 2014

Here, the circuit court quite clearly ruled on the constitutionality of Act 595 of 2013 in granting the PCEC’s summary-judgment motion. … The procedure established by the ASBEC for absentee voters is similar to that established by the General Assembly in Ark.Code Ann. § 7-5-321 (Supp.2013), for in-person voters who fail to present proof of identity.

Turner v. Woodruff

286 Ark. 66 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 20, 1985

. § 1071 et seq.) as amended, to qualified students for payment of educational expenses while attending participating institutions. § 80-4033. … The legislature’s enactment of Act 873 clearly indicated that public support of educational financing is a public purpose.

Mitchell v. State

295 Ark. 341 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 2, 1988

Ct. 2045 (1987), the Supreme Court held that it was improper to have allowed the prosecution to strike for cause a prospective juror who was qualified. … We find the trial judge’s determination that the statement was voluntary not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. b.

Walther v. Carrothers Construction Co. of Arkansas, LLC

492 S.W.3d 504 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 19, 2016

The claimant has the burden of establishing the right to an exemption beyond a reasonable doubt, and- to doubt is to deny the exemption. Id. … The Supreme Court’s rationale provided a sound basis for our holding that Arkansas Valley had not clearly established its right to the tax exemption. Ragland, 275 Ark. at 110 , 627 S.W.2d at 559 .

Arkansas Department of Education Jacob Oliva, in His Official Capacity as Arkansas Secretary of Education Randy Henderson, Jeff Wood, Adrienne Woods, Steve Sutton, O. Fitzgerald Hill, Ouida Newton, Sarah Moore, Kathy McFetridge, and Lisa Hunter, in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Arkansas State Board of Education Friendship Education Foundation And Marvell-Elaine School District v. Doris Ivy Jackson Laverne Sims Jesselia Maples Diamacious Sims Darryl Harris Sylvia Moore Danielle Wright Derashaun McGhee Vivian Davis James Carruth Iola Hoskins Steven Grappe Veronica McClane And Citizens for Arkansas Public Education and Students (Capes), a Ballot Question Committee

2023 Ark. 140 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 12, 2023

Second, the emergency clause fails to state facts sufficient to establish an emergency. … .1 Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit, and jurisdiction must be determined entirely from the pleadings.