Case law

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 .

McDonald v. Thompson

167 Ark. 338 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 1925

S. 30 , the general rule is clearly and fully stated by Mr. … If parol evidence should be allowed to establish such a defense, then every promissory note as between the Immediate parties thereto, and, indeed, every contract in writing, would be open to parol proof that it did not correctly

Mine Creek Contractors, Inc. v. Grandstaff

300 Ark. 516 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 4, 1989

But, in those instances where damages simply cannot be proven with exactness, when the cause and existence of damages have been established by the evidence, recovery will not be denied merely because the damages cannot be … When Leslie attempted to give his opinion on the value of appellees’ business, appellants objected that while he was qualified to testify to accounting matters, he was not qualified to testify as to the value of a business

Randall Thomas McArty v. State of Arkansas

594 S.W.3d 54 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 20, 2020

Standard of Review This court does not reverse a denial of postconviction relief unless the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Polivka v. … “A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court after 3 reviewing the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm

Bourne v. Board of Trustees

347 Ark. 19 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 2001

Act 250 of 1937 established a “policeman’s pension and relief fund.” … Citizens to Establish a Reform Party, 325 Ark. at 264 .

Mann v. City of Heber Springs

239 Ark. 969 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1965

Thus individuals may waive their immunity to illegal searches of their persons, possessions, or dwelling houses, as well as to the illegal search of their premises, places of business, and searches and seizures of books, … established that this court, as well as the Federal courts, has said that consent to a search dispenses with the necessity of a search warrant.

Kaiser v. State

296 Ark. 125 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 27, 1988

In a brief in support of the response, Kaiser clearly argued that: There is nothing in the record to indicate who the informant was, and there is nothing in the record to indicate how the informant obtained the information … The trial court concluded that “the wealth of detail concerning the robbery revealed by the informant, coupled with her admission of tangential participation in the robbery, established that the informant was sufficiently

Plant v. Wilbur

345 Ark. 487 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 9, 2001

Thirdly, I submit that it is equally unclear whether the area in which Plant was located, when injured, qualified as a “restricted area” under the terms of the exculpatory agreement. See, e.g, Arnold v. … We should not, in my opinion, allow parties who promote dangerous sports activities to be effectively immunized from liability when a spectator is injured by a flying wheel (or puck, or folding chair) because the party promoting

Hill v. State

344 Ark. 216 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2001

The jury clearly was convinced that Hill was guilty of the higher charge. … The ruling will only be reversed if it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. See id.

Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Darr

246 Ark. 204 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 24, 1969

It was cited to support “established procedure.” The case before us fads within the second rule. That is because Mrs. … Darr was not qualified to give value testimony and it is clear that her award was enhanced as a result of her opinion. The verdict was in excess of her highest value witness by $6750.

MUNICIPAL HEALTH BENEFIT FUND v. RICKY HENDRIX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL ARKANSANS SIMILARLY SITUATED

2020 Ark. 235 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 11, 2020

Commonality is satisfied when “the defendant’s acts, independent of any action by the class members, establish a common question relating to the entire class.” Id. at 97, 60 S.W.3d at 433. … Carpenter Farms Medical Group, LLC, 2020 Ark. 213, we held that the issue of exhaustion was not ripe in an interlocutory appeal about sovereign immunity. Our holding was expressly confined to sovereign-immunity appeals.

Arkansas Department of Economic Development v. William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation

364 Ark. 40 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 27, 2005

for-profit businesses, according to the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of a “legitimate business enterprise;” (2) the Foundation was already exempt from paying corporate income tax, and ADED determined that the law “clearly … in subsection (b), particularly whether the Foundation qualifies as “a corporate or regional headquarters with no retail sales to the general public.”

Divanovich v. State

271 Ark. 104 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 10, 1980

The record reflects that appellants’ defense attorney was threatened with jail and was refused the opportunity to make a record to establish that the jury heard the threat. … Although the appellant did not give a statement concerning the murder, the implication to the jury was clearly that appellant wanted to confess.

Gammill v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

346 Ark. 161 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 4, 2001

It is only necessary that he be unable to perform any of such acts in order to qualify for benefits. [Citing Avemco and Alexander.] We clearly expressed a preference for an instruction using the word “any” in Avemco. … Nor does the mere fact that one continues to work at his regular job establish a lack of disability.

Bank of Eureka Springs v. Evans

353 Ark. 438 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 5, 2003

The majority then brushes aside this court’s own well-established precedents articulating five essential elements to support an action for malicious prosecution. … If probable cause existed, then clearly there were suspicious activities. Ark.

Walker v. Allred

179 Ark. 1104 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 23, 1929

It is his contention that the sole purpose of act No. 77 of the Acts of 1927 was to repeal that part only of act No. 32 regulating the salaries of the officers of Carroll County, which intent is established by an application … It is a well-settled rule of law that, where the will of the Legislature is clearly expressed, the court should adhere to the literal expression of the enactment without regard to consequences, and every construction derived

Raney v. Raulston

238 Ark. 875 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 11, 1965

An establishment furnishing primarily domiciliary care is not within this definition. * * * “ (f) ‘Nursing Home’ means and shall be construed to include any building, structure, agency, institution, or other place, for the … Actually, it will be noted that both the definitions of “hospital” and “nursing home” vexy clearly denote buildings used for the service of persons who are afflicted with some type of illness or infirmity.

In re Special Task Force- Ark. R. Civ. P. 9 49 52 and Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 8

2014 Ark. 340 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Aug 7, 2014

Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous (clearly against the preponderance of the evidence), and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the … If the nonparty is immune from suit, however, the nonparty will not have joint or several liability.

Arkansas State Highway Commission v. First Pyramid Life Insurance

269 Ark. 278 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 1980

There was clearly no error in this regard. … This explanation is not totally satisfactory, because a cross-examining attorney is not entitled to embark upon a fishing expedition with immunity from any unfavorable information he may elicit.

Clark v. State

373 Ark. 161 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 10, 2008

We hold that the circuit court did not clearly err and affirm the circuit court’s order. … Under the standard of review for a proceeding on a Rule 37.1 petition, the denial of postconviction relief is not reversed unless the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of