Case law

Guebert v. Williams

319 Ark. 43 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 12, 1994

Brown, Justice. The appellant, Kenneth Guebert, is the representative of an unincorporated property owner’s association for the unplatted Walnut Hill Estates subdivision. … Barr v. Richardson, 314 Ark. 294 , 862 S.W.2d 253 (1993); Wallner v. McDonald, supra; Franklin v. OSCA, Inc., 308 Ark. 409 , 825 S.W.2d 812 (1992).

Civil Service Commission of Van Buren v. Matlock

205 Ark. 286 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 15, 1943

In construing this provision of the constitution this court, in the case of Drew County Timber Company v. Board of Equalization, 124 Ark. 569 , 187 S. … State v. Johnson, 26 Ark. 281 ; Wheat v. Smith, 50 Ark. 266 , 7 S. W. 161 ; Wise v. Martin, 36 Ark. 305 ; Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Conway County Bridge District, 134 Ark. 292 , 204 S. W. 630 .

Merriott v. Whitsell

251 Ark. 1031 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 1972

See Rutherford v. Moody, 59 Ark. 328 , 27 S. W. 230 ; Hughes v. Martin, supra. … Brown and Byrd, JJ., dissent.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Greene Acres Nursing Homes, Inc.

296 Ark. 475 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 1988

This is an appeal from a circuit court judgment reversing the decision of an administrative agency, the Long Term Care Facilities Advisory Board. … Comm’n v. Allied Tel. Co., 274 Ark. 478 , 625 S.W.2d 515 (1981). The language of the Acts in question is very clear.

Monteith v. Honey

135 Ark. 407 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 30, 1918

In Taylor v. … Freeman v. Weeks (Mich.), 7 N. W. 904 ; Meir v. Kroft (Iowa), 80 N. W. 521 ; Brown v. Honeyfield (Iowa), 116 N. W. 731 , and Rait v. Furrow (Kan.), 10 A. &. E. Ann. Cas. 1044.

Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. Herndon

365 Ark. 180 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 2, 2006

Brown, Justice, dissenting. I dissent in this mase for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in State of Arkansas v. Herndon, 365 Ark. 185 , 226 S.W.3d 771 (2006), handed down this date.

Rider v. State

126 Ark. 501 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 1, 1917

This is a prosecution for alleged violation of a rule promulgated by the Board of Control of the Agricultural Station concerning cattle tick eradication, and the case is ruled by the recent (opinion of this court in Davis … v.

Kennedy v. State

344 Ark. 433 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 19, 2001

The fight was primarily between Appellant and Lanny Bates, although there was testimony that Appellant’s friend, Rodney Brown, was also involved. … Kim saw Mark give Brown $10 to keep Brown from fighting him. Kim could not hear what Bates and Appellant were saying, but she observed a knife in Appellant’s right hand.

Oliver v. Whittaker

122 Ark. 291 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 14, 1916

Kirst v. Street Improvement District, 86 Ark. 1 ; Alexander v. Board of Directors Crawford County Levee Dist., 97 Ark. 322 . … W. 1006 ; Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Calf. 137; Newman v.

McBride v. Shannon Brothers, Inc.

193 Ark. 730 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 1, 1937

In Reiman v. Rawls, 188 Ark. 983 , 68 S. … In Martin v. Kelley, 190 Ark. 863 , 81 S.

Havis v. State

62 Ark. 500 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 27, 1896

Beasley v. State, 53 Ark. 67 . … Wheeler v. State, 38 Tex. 173 ; West v. Colquitt, 71 Ga. 559 ; S. C. 51 Am. Rep. 277 ; State v. Merrihew, 47 Iowa 112 ; S. C. 29 Am. Rep. 464 ; Brown v. People, 26 Ill. 28 ; Mix v. People, Ib. 32; 2 Am. & Eng. Enc.

J & J Bonding, Inc. v. State

330 Ark. 599 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 13, 1997

Brown, Justice. This case concerns an appeal bond that was executed on January 5, 1994, on behalf of Gary D. Samples, who had been convicted of sexual' abuse and sentenced. … See Cosgrove v. City Of West Memphis, 327 Ark. 324, 328 , 938 S.W.2d 827 (1997); see also Reeves v. Hinkle, 326 Ark. 724 , 934 S.W.2d 216 (1996); Hardy Constr. Co. v. Arkansas State Hwy. & Transp.

Hudson v. Kyle

365 Ark. 341 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 23, 2006

Brown v. Brown, 76 Ark. App. 494 , 68 S.W.3d 316 (2002). Further, this court has traditionally reviewed matters that sounded in equity de novo on the record with respect to fact questions and legal questions. … See Trout v.

King v. Byrne

92 Ark. 88 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 25, 1909

V. Brame and Henry Moore, for the recovery of lands. … Brown v. Nelms, 86 Ark. 368 .

Hunt v. Boyce

176 Ark. 303 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 20, 1928

Gleason v. Boone, 123 Ark. 523 , 185 S. W. 1093 , and Wilkison v. Hudspeth, 134 Ark. 132 , 203 S. W. 263 . … Black v. Brown, 129 Ark. 270 , 195 S. W. 673 ; and Culver v. Gillian, 160 Ark. 397 , 254 S. W. 681 . Finally it is insisted that the decree should be reversed because the court erred in transferring the case to equity.

Driver v. Moore

81 Ark. 80 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 10, 1906

Co. v. Waterworks Imp. Dist., 68 Ark. 376 ; Stiewel v. Fencing District, supra; Overstreet v. Levee District, 80 Ark. 462 ; Jonesboro, L. C. & E. Rd. Co. v. Board of Directors, etc., 80 Ark. 316 . … Co. v. Board of Directors, 80 Ark. 316 .

Dodd v. State

94 Ark. 297 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 21, 1910

Targe discretion is allowed the teacher and the board, within the statute, in determining what course of conduct on the part of pupils is necessary for the good of the whole school. That is the prime consideration. … State v. Pendergrass, 2 Dev. & Batt. 365; Hathaway v. Rice, 19 Vt. 102 ; Stevens v. Fassett, 27 Me. 266 .

State v. Guthrie

203 Ark. 60 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 17, 1941

v. … Stull v. Harris, 51 Ark. 294 , 11 S. W. 104 , 2 L. R. A. 741; Bozeman v. Browning, 31 Ark. 364 ; Ellis v. Ellis, 84 Ala. 348 , 4 So. Rep. 868 .

Thompson v. Roberts

333 Ark. 544 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 11, 1998

In Rogers v. Sangster, 180 Ark. 907 , 23 S.W.2d 613 (1930), and later in Davis v. … Byrd v.

McMillan v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

401 S.W.3d 473 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 19, 2012

Brown v. State, 375 Ark. 499, 502 , 292 S.W.3d 288, 290 (2009) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). … BROWN and GOODSON, JJ., join. . The majority asserts that this dissent adds words to the statute in order to reach the conclusion that the statute is ambiguous.