Case law

Gregory v. Colvin

235 Ark. 1007 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 16, 1963

See 73 C.J.S., Property, 9, generally; also Redfern v. Collins, 113 F. Supp. 892 (Tex.); Willis v. Franklin, 131 F. Supp. 668 , (Tenn.); Wilson v. Brown, 106 F. Supp. 500 (Ky.). … The California District Court of Appeal, in Werner v.

Glover v. Russell

260 Ark. 609 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 8, 1976

Joel Anderson, as members of the Board of Election Commissioners of Pulaski County and Charles F. … Furthermore, the Precinct 180A by the minutes of the Board of Election Commissioners existed only for the 1974 election.

Shelton v. State

261 Ark. 816 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 13, 1977

See Caton and Headley v. State, 252 Ark. 420 , 479 S.W. 2d 537 (1972). Shelton’s second argument has merit. … See Brown v. State, May 23, 1977. Under these circumstances, it was error for the jury to impose a fine, and an error is presumed to be prejudicial unless the contrary affirmatively appears. Osborne v.

Heilig v. Haskins

192 Ark. 311 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 24, 1936

Brown, trustee, to foreclose a deed of trust given by appéllees to secure their promissory note to said Heilig. … Anglin v. Cravens, 76 Ark. 122 , 88 S. W. 833 ; Keffer v. Stuart, 127 Ark. 498 , 193 S. W. 83 ; Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 128 Ark. 155 , 193 S. W. 540 ; Prayer v. Wootton, 182 Ark. 37 , 30 S. W. (2d) 845 .

Stroud v. M. M. Barksdale Lumber Co.

229 Ark. 111 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 26, 1958

V. … To the same effect, see: Clements v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company, 99 Ark. 335 , 138 S. W. 971 ; Teal v. Thompson, 180 Ark. 63 , 20 S. W. 2d 307 , and; Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. H.

Young v. Red Fork Levee District

124 Ark. 61 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1916

The statute is, in other words, a general statute applicable to all levee and drainage districts in the State, and we have so v decided in another case. Russell v. … Hampton v. Hickey, 88 Ark. 324 .

Arkansas State Banking Department v. Arkansas League of Savings Institutions, Inc.

307 Ark. 474 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 23, 1991

The trial court held for the appellees, and the appellants, Arkansas State Banking Board and other interested parties, appeal. … Schuman v. Certain Lands, 223 Ark. 85 , 264 S.W.2d 413 (1954). At the time Act 21 was enacted in 1935, savings and loans were clearly excluded.

Road Improvement District No. 1. v. Delinquent Lands

158 Ark. 58 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 2, 1923

This is an action instituted in the chancery court of Independence County by appellant, the board of improvement of a local improvement district created by special act of the General Assembly, to enforce payment of unpaid … The case falls within the principles announced in the following cases: Fitzgerald v. Walker, 55 Ark. 148 ; Altheimer v. Board of Directors, 79 Ark. 229 ; Forrest City v. Bank of Forrest City, 116 Ark. 377 ; Hitchcock v.

Watson v. State

313 Ark. 304 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 24, 1993

Brown, Justice. The appellant, Frances Watson, appeals her conviction for two counts of endangering the welfare of a minor under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-203 (1987) and her sentence of six years on each count. … See D.J. v. State, 308 Ark. 37 , 821 S.W.2d 782 (1992); Harrison v. State, 300 Ark. 439 , 779 S.W.2d 536 (1989); Roberts v. State, 288 Ark. 640 , 707 S.W.2d 324 (1986) (per curiam). We emphasized in Kitchen v.

McIlroy Bank v. First National Bank of Fayetteville

252 Ark. 558 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1972

Lyle Brown, Justice. This is a contest between two banks to determine which, if either, is entitled to the proceeds of a judgment taken in favor of a creditor who was indebted to both banks. … Trowbridge & Jennings v. Means, 5 Ark. 135 ; Tunstall v. Means, 5 Ark. 700 .

Hedrick v. Hickman

225 Ark. 273 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 27, 1955

By that act the county board of election commissioners was required to certify the election result to the county clerk. … Williams v. Buchanan, 84 Ark. 404 , 106 S. W. 202 . Here the asserted repugnancy between the two statutes is not sufficiently clear-cut to require a finding of implied repeal. Affirmed.

Laird v. Shelnut

348 Ark. 632 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 16, 2002

First, I agree with Justice Brown’s dissenting opinion. … Glaze and Brown, JJ., join in this dissent.

Webb v. Miller

236 Ark. 245 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 11, 1963

In Clements v. Cox, 230 Ark. 818 , 327 S. … Paper Mill Co., Inc. v.

Schmidt v. Pearson, Evans and Chadwick

326 Ark. 499 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 4, 1996

See Schmidt v. McIlroy Bank & Trust. The dissent by Justice Brown in Schmidt v. … The decision in Schmidt v. Mcflroy Bank & Trust is bad law. This court should take its earliest opportunity to reverse that decision, and adopt the position of Justice Brown’s dissent in that case.

Ben Motal v. City of Little Rock

2025 Ark. 40 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 10, 2025

See C.R.T., Inc. v. Brown, 269 Ark. 114, 117, 602 S.W.2d 409, 410–11 (1980) (citing Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714 (1967)). … See Strohm v. ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc., 308 P.3d 424, 446 (Utah 2013); Trope v. Katz, 902 P.2d 259, 267 (Cal. 1995); see also Upson v.

Damien D. Ford v. State of Arkansas

622 S.W.3d 635 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 13, 2021

Millsap v. State, 2020 Ark. 38. … Code Ann. § 5-4-309(g)(1)(A) (Supp. 2009); see State v. Brown, 2019 Ark. 395, 590 S.W.3d 121 (citing Lee v. State, 2010 Ark. 261 (per curiam)).

Western Clay National Farm Loan Ass'n v. Lilly

189 Ark. 1004 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 19, 1934

The question here under consideration was determined by the Supreme Court of North Dakota in Byrne v. Federal Land Bank, etc., 61 N. D. 265 , 237 N. … The power to declare an association insolvent and to appoint a receiver therefor is vested in the Federal Farm Loan Board.

Wynn v. State

316 Ark. 414 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 21, 1994

See Brown v. State, 315 Ark. 466 , 869 S.W.2d 9 (1994). Even if a general renewal of all “objections” could be said to constitute renewal of all motions, it does not make clear to the court the grounds for severance. … See Richardson v. State, 292 Ark. 140 , 728 S.W.2d 189 (1987). Further, scattered transcript references throughout an argument are not a substitute for a proper abstract. See Watson v.

ProAssurance Indemnity Co. v. Metheny

425 S.W.3d 689 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 13, 2012

BROWN, Justice, concurring. I agree with the majority opinion in every respect but one and that concerns whether ProAssurance preserved an objection to the disallowance of the use of Dr. Kim Bingaman’s deposition. … See Western Sizzlin Corp. v. Parks Land Co., LLLP, 2009 Ark. 277 , 309 S.W.3d 193 . In the instant case, it appears that the Methenys would be placed in that position. As a second matter, Dr.

State v. Sheard

315 Ark. 710 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 7, 1994

That case (and Brown v. State, 264 Ark. 944 , 581 S.W.2d 549 (1979), cited therein) differs substantially from the one before us now—there, group sex involving multiple parties was not involved. … In an obiter dictum we remarked that the Trial Court had properly ruled that the alleged victim could be examined about her prior sexual relations with the two defendants, citing Brown v.