Case law

Jobe v. Urquhart

102 Ark. 470 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1912

exercise of the functions of his office in making his estimates of the amount legally due under the contract of purchase, and he might refuse to issue his warrant for a sum demanded by the appellee which he believed was clearly … It is a fixed rule of this court, of long duration, and well established, that in construing the legality of acts of the Legislature this court will take judicial knowledge of the recitals and records of the journals of both

Kevin Hackie v. Colonel William J. Bryant, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Arkansas State Police

654 S.W.3d 814 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 1, 2022

In 2019, we reversed the circuit court’s order dismissing Hackie’s appeal as barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Hackie v. Bryant, 2019 Ark. 228, 577 S.W.3d 10 (Hackie I). … Here, section 17-4-306 is 7 clearly the more specific statute, and it therefore controls.

Rison v. Farr

24 Ark. 161 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1865

electors in this state, and have fixed all the pre-requisites necessary to qualify a citizen to exercise the elective franchise. … And clearly, if the legislature cannot, by direct legislation, prohibit those who possess the constitutional qualification to vote, from exercising the elective franchise, that end cannot be'accomplished by indirect legislation

Smith v. State

218 Ark. 725 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 9, 1951

The facts in the instant case are clearly distinguishable from those in the case of Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U. S. 463 , 68 S. Ct. 184 , 92 L. … We have held that flight of the accused is admissible as a circumstance in corroboration of evidence tending to establish guilt. Stevens v. State, 143 Ark. 618 , 221 S. W. 186 .

Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Richard's Honda Yamaha

344 Ark. 44 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 1, 2001

We have also held that the testimony of the legislators with respect to their intent in introducing legislation is clearly inadmissible. Board of Trustees v. City of Little Rock, 295 Ark. 585 , 750 S.W.2d 950 (1988). … Stroud was not qualified to testify as to the intent of the legislature in adopting the act. We hold that allowing Ms.

Pedraza v. Circuit Court of Drew County

426 S.W.3d 441 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 14, 2013

The court, by letter, informed the parties that both death-qualified defense attorneys were required to be present at all stages of the proceedings. … |gWe conclude that Pedraza is not entitled to a writ of certiorari in this instance because he clearly has another adequate remedy at law, an appeal.

Pioneer Finance Co. v. Lane

255 Ark. 811 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 24, 1973

The circuit court granted this motion for summary judgment after considering the affidavit of the secretary of state in which that official stated Rainbow Industries was not qualified to do business in Arkansas as a domestic … Of course, our statutes and cases make it quite clear that the burden is on the movant to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Ark. Stat.

Lee v. Big Flat Public Schools

280 Ark. 377 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 17, 1983

We must affirm the trial court’s decision if not clearly erroneous. ARCP Rule 52. … No basis for relief is established by this second contention. Affirmed. Adkisson, C.J., and Hickman and Hays, JJ., dissent.

Walpole v. Lewis

254 Ark. 89 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 19, 1973

We consider the evidence sufficient to establish the will as an attested will. … Application of the rule in Anthony clearly réquires that the will before us be sustained as an attested will.

Streight v. Ragland

280 Ark. 206 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 25, 1983

It provides: "Privileges and Immunities— Equality.—The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens." … Here we must exercise judicial restraint under the well settled principle of stare decisis, deferring to established reason.

First Commercial Bank v. Meyer

289 Ark. 345 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 30, 1986

Construction Company established a profit sharing plan for its employees. The plan was qualified under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Duane T. … On the facts before us, we cannot say the chancellor was clearly wrong because evidently Scherr did misinterpret his instructions. That was the judgment of the chancellor.

Michael E. Rea v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

2020 Ark. 347 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 29, 2020

Rea’s challenge does not establish a basis for the writ to issue. … Rea failed to establish that the circuit court erred by denying habeas relief. Affirmed.

Bright v. Bostick

27 Ark. 55 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1871

Hayman was a regular miller, and was well qualified to judge of the value. … The above is the substance of what was proven on the trial, and we are of opinion that it clearly establishes the fact,vthat the rent of the property, for'the time it was in the possession of Bright, was worth even more than

Green v. State

2013 Ark. 455 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 7, 2013

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the trial court clearly erred in holding that counsel’s performance was not ineffective. Stevenson v. State, 2013 Ark. 302 (per curiam); Taylor v. State, 2013 Ark. 146, ___ S.W.3d ___. … Additionally, section 12-12- 917(b)(4)(B) (Repl. 2009) states that a “sex offender has immunity for a statement made by him or her in the course of assessment with respect to prior conduct under the immunity provisions

Reynolds Metal Co. v. Circuit Court of Clark County

428 S.W.3d 506 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 27, 2013

Thus, when a party to a lawsuit raises a question of whether a person enjoys immunity as an employer under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Commission must first decide the issue. Miller v. … This court has stated a number of times that when encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Commission is clear, a writ of prohibition is clearly warranted.

Brown v. State

239 Ark. 909 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 8, 1965

While the shell case, bullet and pistol were not taken from Brown, it was established that these items had been in the possession of defendant. … Justice White, went on to say: “* * # jn q^st for an impartial and qualified jury, Negro and white, Protestant and Catholic, are alike subject to being challenged without cause.

Pettus v. Kerr

87 Ark. 396 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 28, 1908

The testimony adduced at the trial tended to establish the allegations of the complaint, and was sufficient for that purpose. … The two instructions are not in conflict with each other, but the latter explains and qualifies the former. Citizens’ Electric Co. v. Thomas, 75 Ark. 260 .

Burt v. Arkansas Livestock & Poultry Commission

278 Ark. 236 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 24, 1983

Apparently this argument is bottomed on the indemnity schedule established by the United States Department of Agriculture pursuant to 21 U.S.G.A. 114 (a). … We also agree that the state cannot create different classifications on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the purpose for which the classification is established.

Wenderoth v. City of Fort Smith

251 Ark. 342 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 1, 1971

That the enactment of zoning ordinances is a legislative function and not a judicial one is well established and should need little citation of authority.” … However, zoning regulations and ordinances are not immune to appellate review.

Pledger v. Baldor International, Inc.

309 Ark. 30 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 30, 1992

A presumption exits in favor of the taxing power of the state, and a taxpayer has the burden of establishing the right to an exemption beyond a reasonable doubt. Pledger v. … In interpreting, “used directly in manufacturing”, this court has not required the equipment to directly come into contact with the finished product before qualifying for an exemption. For instance, in Cheney v.