Case law

Franklin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

319 Ark. 468 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 13, 1995

Appellant’s burden, then, in order to establish an absence of substantial evidence, is to show that the proof before the Department was so nearly undisputed that fair-minded persons could not reach its conclusion. Id. … Further, the evidence of record is undisputed that appellant was clearly dependent upon her existing support network of the local aging agency, neighbors, church members, and family for the accomplishment of such basic tasks

Lajason J. Coakley v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. 180 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 14, 2021

On November 7, Coakley filed a second pro se petition to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111.1 Coakley argued that his sentence is illegal because he does not qualify for a life … Coakley is entitled to no relief pursuant to section 16-90-111 unless he established that the judgment in his case was illegal on its face. Redus, 2019 Ark. 44, 566 S.W.3d 469. He failed to do so.

Taylor v. State

470 S.W.3d 271 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 1, 2015

appeal, he argues that the circuit court erred in denying his Rule 37 petition because appellate counsel’s failure to appeal the trial court’s ruling that prohibited him from inquiring of the victims about any plea or immunity … It is petitioner’s responsibility in a Rule 37.1 petition to establish that the issue was raised at trial, that the trial court erred in its ruling on the issue, and that an argument concerning the issue could have been

Stephens v. Martin

491 S.W.3d 451 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 27, 2014

During that review, more than 3,000 signatures were disqualified, and the Secretary of State notified GARN on July 18 that the petition did not meet the signature requirements established in article 5, section 1. … We will accept the master’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See Roberts v. Priest, 334 Ark. 503, 975 S.W.2d 850 (1998).

Bailey v. State

204 Ark. 376 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 25, 1942

The court is authorized to determine the truth of the matter, and he is certainly better qualified to pass on the application for a change of venue than is any one else. … criminal cases that the presumption of law is that a defendant can get a fair and impartial trial in the county in which the offense was committed, and that in order to overcome this presumption the defendant must show clearly

Dickerson v. Okolona

98 Ark. 206 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 13, 1911

three days after the claimant shall have notified them in writing that he has appointed his assessor, appoint one assessor on the part of the city, and they shall, within five days thereafter, select the third assessor, and qualify … This remedy is manifestly not exclusive, for the right to maintain an action for compensation where the proper amount has not been allowed is clearly recognized in the statute.

Roberts v. Priest

334 Ark. 503 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 15, 1998

We cannot say that the master was clearly erroneous by not counting these signatures. … Where, as here, the sponsor fails to comply with and ignores and abuses these simple procedural requirements, established by our Constitution to protect all the residents and taxpayers of Arkansas, neither the Secretary of

Henry v. Stuart

251 Ark. 361 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 8, 1971

Appellants are qualified electors and taxpayers of the Desha County School District. Appellees are members of the Desha County Board of Election Commissioners. … That is clearly not a ministerial act but an act of discretion.

Morgan v. State

510 S.W.3d 253 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 23, 2017

To the extent that Morgan’s claims alleged that the proof used to establish his status as a habitual offender was insufficient or that he was not provided an adequate hearing, those claims were not cognizable. … As in Wooten, Morgan also alleged that the statute was unconstitutionally applied because his prior convictions included out-of-state felony convictions, and the statute did not clearly define a “violent felony” with regard

Farmers Cooperative Ass'n v. Stevens

260 Ark. 735 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 13, 1976

Stevens contended, and the trial court held, that the land qualified for a rural homestead exemption under Article 9, Section 4, of the State Constitution. … The proof establishes that the 20-acre tract claimed to be exempt is used as defendant’s home and exclusively for agricultural purposes.

Bailey v. Martin

433 S.W.3d 904 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 2014

Bailey thus argued that a writ of mandamus was not warranted, as there was no clearly established, undisputed legal right to demonstrate that mandamus should issue. … Similarly, we have held that a party may not utilize the process established in section 7-5-207(b) in a post-election challenge. See Zolliecoffer v.

Calvert Fire Insurance v. Hardwicke

232 Ark. 466 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 26, 1960

The insurance policy (covering collision damage) issued by appellant Calvert Fire Insurance Company, was dated July 27, 1953, and clearly stated that it expired on July 27, 1955. … It was definitely established that there was only one person in this State recognized by the Insurance Department of Arkansas as legally qualified to countersign insurance policies for the Calvert Fire Insurance Company;

Boyd v. Weiss

333 Ark. 684 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1998

In Thompson, legislation had been passed which established new vocational-technical schools in counties having a population of less than 6,000. … Only Perry County qualified, and we struck down the legislation on the basis that there was no reason shown why Perry County, more so than any other county in the state, should be the lone qualifier.

Davault v. Parks

190 Ark. 370 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 18, 1935

Parks was named in the will as one of the executors and qualified and is acting in that capacity. … The rule of law alluded to is clearly stated in the case of Alford v. Johnson, 103 Ark. 236 , 146 S.

Sparks v. First National Bank

242 Ark. 435 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 24, 1967

The fact of minority shall be established by satisfactory evidence. b. Other Incompetents. … The use of the word “shall” requires a construction making the testimony or statement of at least one qualified medical witness mandatory in determination of incompetency.

Hempstead v. Auditor

16 Ark. 57 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1855

for two years, and until his successor was elected and qualified, and receive a salary of $500 out of the Internal Improvement fund. … Until such maps, &c., were furnished by the Auditor to the Agent for the "Washington district, (the petitioner,) it would seem to have been clearly the intention of the Legislature, that the Land Agent for the State should

City of Fort Smith v. Tate

311 Ark. 405 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 11, 1993

We said: Section 81-1310(c)(2) clearly places a maximum amount upon “weekly benefits” for death and permanent total disability for which an employer or his insurance carrier is liable; significantly, however, the section … The delimitation of benefits in 1968 and the establishment of the Fund in 1973 reflects the goal of adequately compensating the widow and dependents of a deceased employee.

Cannady v. St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center

537 S.W.3d 259 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 8, 2018

Accordingly, the circuit court’s conclusion that this threshold issue was a factual 117question for the jury was clearly erroneous. … It violates the separation of powers for this court to create law that completely immunizes an employer against vicarious liability if the |1Remployer promulgates a policy that proscribes a certain behavior.

Herring v. Stannus

169 Ark. 244 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 1925

for the reasons that it operates to deprive them of their liberty and property without due process of law; that the ordinance takes private property for public use without compensation; that it abridges the privileges and immunities … But we think it clearly appears that the natufie of this business, and the early hours 'in the morning and the late hours in the evening during which it is operated, make it a proper subject of regulation.

Yedrysek v. State

293 Ark. 541 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 16, 1987

The Valladares court stated: Clearly failure to prosecute the only co-conspirator, or an inconsistent disposition or inconsistent verdict in a different trial, would not affect a defendant’s guilt. [Cite omitted.] … The evidence was admissible to show Ronald’s culpable mental state, and flight to avoid arrest or trial is admissible as a circumstance in corroboration of evidence tending to establish guilt. Mason v.