Case law

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.

Nelson v. State

318 Ark. 146 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 3, 1994

It is well-established that parties are presumed to contract only for their own benefit and not for the use and benefit of a third party, unless it clearly appears that such was the intention of the contracting parties. … The lease clearly does not indicate any intention to benefit possible third-party trespassers such as appellant.

Pack v. Little Rock Convention Center & Visitors Bureau

427 S.W.3d 586 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 2, 2013

Accordingly, precedent establishes that spouses or relatives of an injured employee are entitled to compensation for nursing services. … Here, the Timber Ridge services to Pack clearly fall within the definition of “nursing services.” The assisted-living facility would tend to Pack, and provide Pack the care required due to his brain injury.

BONNIE MILLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ARKANSAS VOTERS FIRST AND OPEN PRIMARIES ARKANSAS, BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEES v. JOHN THURSTON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ARKANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE

2020 Ark. 267 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Aug 27, 2020

Neither initiative petition can qualify for the November 2020 general election ballot. 1 The popular name of this proposed amendment is “A Constitutional Amendment Establishing Top Four Open Primary Elections … It could not be more clearly stated: Unwarranted Restrictions Prohibited.

Hoyle v. Faucher

334 Ark. 529 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 15, 1998

Code Ann. § 26-26-401 (Repl. 1994), properly sets out which reappraisals qualify for a rollback of the millage levied. … The trial court clearly erred in finding there was no countywide comprehensive reappraisal that would trigger Amendment 59.

Van De Griff v. Haynie

28 Ark. 270 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1873

Thus the governor exercises a part of the legislative power, possessing a qualified negative upon all laws. … Neither the executive nor the judiciary, therefore, can exercise any authority or power except such as is clearly granted by the constitution.

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad v. Arkansas Commerce Commission

243 Ark. 661 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 4, 1967

of such discontinued, * * * agency station, signed by at least twenty-five [25] qualified electors residing in the city, town or political subdivision where the same is located, is filed with the Arkansas Commerce Commission … This testimony falls far short of establishing these approaches or methods as “standard accounting procedures.”

Butler v. State

384 S.W.3d 526 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 13, 2011

The circuit court did not clearly err in rejecting his claim on that basis. II. … A juror is presumed to be unbiased and qualified to serve, and the burden is on the appellant to prove otherwise. Lee v. State, 343 Ark. 702 , 38 S.W.3d 334 (2001).

Johnson v. State

337 Ark. 196 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 8, 1999

Jones conceded that he had never been qualified as an expert witness in any court. The trial court denied Mr. Johnson’s request to qualify Mr. Jones as an expert witness. … The evidence also established that Mr. Johnson refused to submit to breath or field-sobriety tests.

Haller v. Willamowicz

23 Ark. 566 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1861

, that the articles of partnership, however stringent, are liable, in the view of a court of equity, to be qualified or waived, either pro tanto, or in whole, by the assent oí the partners, expressed or implied from the acts … He was clearly chargeable with the one sum or the other, and being charged with the lesser, he was not prejudiced and cannot complain. The decree is affirmed. Mr. Justice Faikohild did not sit in this case.

Thompson v. Arkansas Social Services

282 Ark. 369 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 7, 1984

First he contends that the lower court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were clearly erroneous. … Parental rights are not immune from interference by the state in its role of parens patriae. The statute is also not vague.

Griffith v. Sebastian County

49 Ark. 24 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1886

said defendant, under the Constitution of the State of Arkansas ; for by said Constitution, adopted in 1874, the defendant county is permanently divided into two districts, each exercising all the powers, privileges and immunities … Sebastian County, 21 Ark., 440, has been thought to be decisive of the present case, but it is clearly distinguishable.

State v. Real Estate Bank

5 Ark. 595 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1844

The principles here laid down clearly show that the first and second replications are bad; We pass by for the'present the third. … The principles heretofore stated, clearly show this replication defective.

Pardue v. State

363 Ark. 567 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 13, 2005

A petitioner may qualify for relief under Ark. R. Crim. … However, the evidence before the trial court at the postconviction-relief hearing clearly established that a factual basis did exist at the time of the guilty plea.

May v. Daniels

359 Ark. 100 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 7, 2004

Moreover, the amendment clearly provides the General Assembly with the power to pass further legislation determining the rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage. … The legal status of unmarried persons is clearly "unmarried." In DHS v.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Kistler

320 Ark. 501 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1995

Further, she receives Supplemental Security Income and is Medicaid qualified. She currently lives with, and is cared for by, her mother, Mrs. Jennifer Kistler. … Further, § 25-15-212 establishes an entitlement to “judicial review of the action under this subchapter.” Section 25-15-212 establishes the rules and procedures applicable to the process. In Whitlock v. G.P.W.

Russell v. Webb

96 Ark. 190 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 11, 1910

Hale, who qualified as a competent surveyor. … If the meaning of the jury can be clearly collected from the verdict, it ought not to be set aside.

Glover v. State

248 Ark. 1260 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 1970

Ed. 2d 751 , cited and relied on by the majority, which should make the case at bar immune to the rules this court followed long before the United States Supreme Court ever heard of the Indiana case of Irvin v. Dowd. … The defendant challenged the qualification of the venireman but the trial court held that he was qualified.

Bean v. Office of Child Support Enforcement

340 Ark. 286 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 3, 2000

As noted, i'n the absence of an express declaration, in order for a statute to be applied retroactively, it either must affect the fiscal viability of the State or qualify as remedial. … The chancellor’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Affirmed. 1 This statute was again amended in 1997 and 1999.

Axley v. Hardin

353 Ark. 529 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 12, 2003

told Axley that he or the College qualified for such an exemption. … Citing § 25-15-207(a), the McEuen court held that the words of the statute “clearly establish that it is not necessary that the injury already have occurred or that a person show he was affected by it in order to obtain a