Case law

Eoff v. Warden

330 Ark. 244 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 16, 1997

The property in question in the Stalter case was a porch on a house the control of which had clearly been relinquished to the tenant. … It is well-established that the landlord’s traditional tort immunity is not available when injuries to tenants or to others result horn dangerous conditions on portions of the property that are within the control of the landlord

Williams v. State

338 Ark. 97 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 10, 1999

The circumstances surrounding Errickson’s abduction clearly support the jury’s verdict that she was restrained without consent. … Williams first argues death-qualifying the jury was unconstitutional. This issue has already been settled by this court. We have time and again rejected the notion that death-qualified juries are unconstitutional.

Foust v. Montez-Torres

456 S.W.3d 736 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2015

Accordingly, the circuit court did not clearly err in holding that Foust was not in loco parentis for the entirely of M.F.’s life. … We will not reverse the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Id.

Ragland v. General Tire and Rubber Co.

297 Ark. 394 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 1989

However, he did not conduct a test to conclusively establish whether it is or not. … The trial court was clearly erroneous in ruling to the contrary. We reverse and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and Remanded.

Heirs of Mills v. Wylie

250 Ark. 703 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 17, 1971

Vaught supra, stating: “If this test applies in determining if a will is unconditional it should apply in determining if it is ambiguous, more especially when as here the extrinsic evidence in the record clearly establishes … Were we to affirm this case, no will would be immune from a possible successful attack, for while the testator might plainly state the disposition desired, there could well be numerous heirs who would go into court to prove

Myers v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

380 S.W.3d 906 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 28, 2011

We agree with appellant that the recordings did not qualify as business records; however, we affirm the circuit court’s admission of the recordings because they were not hearsay. … But, even assuming that appellant has made the proper arguments, DHS argues that the circuit court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.

Roach v. Kirk

228 Ark. 958 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 31, 1958

Clearly, we think the court was warranted in finding this ballot illegal. Mrs. Acey Duncan. We do not detail the evidence which the court found to he sufficient to invalidate Mrs. Duncan’s ballot. … his residence in District 45, and that he was not a qualified voter in School District 3 under Sec. 3-101 Ark.

Ex parte Deeds

75 Ark. 542 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 27, 1905

It therefore falls clearly within that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which prohibits a State from denying to “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and is … It is urged, however, on behalf of the State, that the proviso may be stricken out, thus removing the conflict, and leave the remainder of the act unimpaired, under the established rule that statutes constitutional in part

Hervey v. Tyson's Foods, Inc.

252 Ark. 703 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 29, 1972

Madison Cadillac Co., 191 Ark. 1021 , 88 S.W. 2d 1007 (1935), we held that the burden is on the claimant “to establish clearly his right to exemption.” … Secondly, appellee has not met the burden of clearly showing the right to exemption.

Wooten v. State

370 S.W.3d 475 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 2, 2010

So Wooten has clearly failed to meet the second criteria in Robbins. Indeed, the only criteria that Wooten has successfully met under Robbins is that his case is a death-penalty case that requires heightened scrutiny. … In discussing the criteria necessary to establish the extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a recall of the mandate, the Lee opinion enumerated the Robbins factors as follows: (1) the presence of a defect in the

Moore v. State

303 Ark. 514 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 5, 1990

All later actions which resulted in obtaining evidence were taken by qualified officers. Ark. … We cannot say that the trial court’s finding that the waiver of rights was voluntary was clearly erroneous.

Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. v. Palasack

366 Ark. 601 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 22, 2006

Secondly, it is clearly distinguishable on its facts. … In the instant case, the circuit court’s definition clearly defines the class based on objective criteria.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee

348 Ark. 707 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 16, 2002

We have further held that the qualified privilege must be exercised in a reasonable manner and for a proper purpose and that the immunity does not extend to irrelevant defamatory statements that have no relation to the interest … A plaintiff must establish actual damage to his reputation, but the showing of harm may be slight. Id.

Wilhite v. State

84 Ark. 67 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 8, 1907

of the evidence her want of chastity before his defense is made out should be explained, and then such explanation should be qualified with the further instruction that if the evidence on this issue, taken together with … If this letter was written prior to appellant’s having intercourse with her, clearly he would be entitled to it as evidence tending to prove his charge that she was not a woman of personal chastity at the time of her seduction

Husia Harkuf v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

622 S.W.3d 638 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 13, 2021

Because Harkuf failed to establish that he was entitled to issuance of the writ, we affirm the circuit court’s order. I. … Because circuit courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes, the trial court qualified as a court of competent jurisdiction to hear and determine Harkuf’

Ward v. State

539 S.W.3d 546 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 1, 2018

McWilliams would have us answer "yes" on the ground that Ake clearly established that a State must provide an indigent defendant with a qualified mental health expert retained specifically for the defense team, not a neutral … The dissent calls our unwillingness to resolve the broader question whether Ake clearly established a right to an expert independent from the prosecution a "most unseemly maneuver."

Jennifer McGill, Individually and on Behalf of the Arkansas Canvassing Compliance Committee; And Cherokee Nation Entertainment, LLC v. John Thurston, in His Capacity as Arkansas Secretary of State Local Voters in Charge, a Ballot Question Committee; And Jim Knight, Individually and on Behalf of Local Voters in Charge Intervenors

698 S.W.3d 121 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 14, 2024

Considering the plain language of these statutory definitions, a wide range of groups or people can qualify as “the sponsor” for purposes of section 7-9-601(b)(3). … Petitioners next argue that the special master erred in finding that petitioners did not carry their burden of establishing violations of the pay-per-signature prohibition in Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-9-601(g)(1

State v. Ashley

1 Ark. 513 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1839

These enacting ■clauses clearly indicate, that it was the design and object of thelegis-]ature to create and establish but one banking institution. … by the act of incorporation, which would be clearly, not only irregular, but illegal.

Grable v. State

298 Ark. 489 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 1, 1989

Just as the defendant has no duty to establish any fact proving his innocence, Griffin v. … Clearly the state is in the better position to establish whatever charges it has made against the defendant. We have no doubt it is the duty of the state to bring a proper charge.

Vincent Hussey v. State of Arkansas

2026 Ark. 26 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2026

Standard of Review We do not reverse a trial court’s decision to deny a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under Act 1780 unless it is clearly erroneous. 13 A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there … Hussey merely contends the denial of his request for testing qualifies as a blanket violation of procedural due process without demonstrating an unconstitutional state action or inadequate state process.