Case law

Roane v. Green & Wilson

24 Ark. 210 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1866

the terms of the contract; but would offer no matter of defence-in bar of a recovery upon the contract even in its qualified state. … Even though, in reducing the agreement to writing, there was clearly a mistake made, parol evidence is inadmissible to correct it. As in the case of Jackson vs. Sill, 11 John.

James v. Williams

372 Ark. 82 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 10, 2008

Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit. Department of Human Servs. v. Crunkleton, 303 Ark. 21 , 791 S.W.2d 704 (1990). Plaintiffs' remedy, if any, was under the Administrative Procedure Act. … Subject-matter jurisdiction was not raised by any party in the Paron matter; nor did this court raise it on its own, though we clearly had the right to do so.

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

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.

Robert Woodward v. State of Arkansas

2022 Ark. 102 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 19, 2022

court dismissed the civil complaint in the same order, finding that the civil complaint was improperly filed in the criminal matter, failed to state facts upon which relief could be granted, and was barred by prosecutorial immunity … The findings of the circuit court do not establish that a motion to vacate was received to be filed within the ninety-day time frame to be considered timely for postconviction relief.

McFarland v. McFarland

318 Ark. 446 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 31, 1994

Parental rights are not immune from interference by the State in its role of parens patriae.” The cases on which Mr. … Here is what the Iowa Court said: Clearly higher education is a matter of legitimate state interest. However, this alone does not settle the issue raised.

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

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.

Bracy Development, Co. v. Milam

252 Ark. 268 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 3, 1972

Such surviving or new corporation shall have all the rights, privileges, immunities and powers and shall be subject to all the duties and liabilities of a corporation organized under this act [chapters 1-10 of this title] … The appellee has cited no court decisions directly in point with the question presented here, but the appellee does cite decisions in support of its argument that the burden rests on the taxpayer to show that he clearly qualifies

Bowden v. State

297 Ark. 160 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 5, 1988

A trial court’s ruling on waiver of counsel will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Loane, supra. … The guidelines established by this court with respect to competency of a witness enunciated in Jackson v.

Michael John Gray, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Democratic Party of Arkansas; And Nicole Hart, in Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Democratic Party of Arkansas's Nominating Convedntion for House District 12 v. Doyle Webb, on Behalf of the Republican Party of Arkansas; And David Tollett, a Resident, Qualified Elector, and the Republican Nominee for Arkansas House District 12

611 S.W.3d 466 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 24, 2020

DOYLE WEBB, ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ARKANSAS; AND DAVID TOLLETT, A RESIDENT, QUALIFIED AFFIRMED. … We see no reason to depart from the long-standing precedent established by Irby. Our holding in Irby controls here.

Schuman v. Metropolitan Trust Company

199 Ark. 283 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 27, 1939

The law requires the notice to be published in ‘any county publication qualified by law,’ and this means in one publication or one newspaper. 46 C. … The rule was clearly formulated by Judge Scott in Patrick v. Davis, 15 Ark. 363 . It had been enforced in previous cases, and has been steadily adhered to since.

Swiderski v. Goggins

257 Ark. 228 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 12, 1974

After a careful review of the statute, we are of the view that it was the legislature’s intent, in establishing the voting formula, to make it reasonably certain that every absentee voter would be assured of the right to … There we said that by statute the county board of election commissioners clearly had the right and duty to determine the sufficiency of the petitions. However, in the case at bar the pertinent statute, Ark. Stat.

Edwards v. Hall

30 Ark. 31 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1875

Article 13, section 3, of the Constitution of 1874, ordains 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, nor until … the place at which it is proposed to establish, or change such County seat to, shall be fully designated.”

Gordon v. State

259 Ark. 134 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 19, 1976

Furthermore, questions going to the competence of a witness are largely discretionary with the trial judge and are not ordinarily reviewable on appeal unless so clearly in error as to constitute an abuse of discretion. … Appellant’s final contention is that the court erred in allowing Officer Sparks’ testimony concerning other drug related crimes in order to establish a value for the contraband seized in the instant case.

Oliver v. State

483 S.W.3d 298 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 25, 2016

The trial court’s findings of fact, on which it bases its decision to grant or deny the petition for writ of error coram nobis, will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance … Oliver alleged that there was a doctor who would testify to his mental disease or defect, but counsel erroneously advised him that the doctor was neither licensed nor qualified.

Bogan v. Arkansas First National Bank

249 Ark. 840 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 25, 1971

It does not clearly appear that Dr. … Bogan’s estate — a position for which the proof shows the bank to be qualified.

Weigh Systems South, Inc. v. Mark's Scales & Equipment, Inc.

347 Ark. 868 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 7, 2002

The testimony further established that WSS’s marketing plan was established by visiting trade shows and talking with customers about upcoming projects. … We conclude that the finding of the chancellor relating to this factor was not clearly erroneous.

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

89 Ark. 466 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 1, 1909

This view would seem to be reasonable, and that it is the view of the Supreme Court of the United States, can clearly be gathered from the cases of Central of Georgia Railway Company v. Murphey, 196 U. … The failure to furnish cars under the terms of the act under investigation will establish prima facie a breach of duty on the part of the railroad companies.

Carter v. Norris

367 Ark. 360 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 28, 2006

We do not reverse a denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Greene v. State, 356 Ark. 59 , 146 S.W.3d 871 (2004). … We have long held that “[a]n opinion which qualifies as one not designated for publication is written primarily for the parties and their attorneys ....