Case law

Smith v. Wright

461 S.W.3d 687 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 7, 2015

Judicial Power The judicial power is vested in the Judicial Department of state government, consisting of a Supreme Court and other courts established by this Constitution. § 2. … When interpreting the constitution, “our task is to read the laws as they are written, and interpret them in accordance with established principles of constitutional construction....

Ark. Real Estate Co. v. Fullerton

232 Ark. 713 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 14, 1960

Certainly, we do not consider that appellants can come under the category “owner”, for the evidence clearly reflects that the stocks were sold as a means of directly promoting the enterprise of building warehouses. … In other words, under the undisputed facts, appellants, as a matter of law, clearly violated the Securities Act.

State v. Aud

351 Ark. 531 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 23, 2003

Under these circumstances, we conclude that the State has failed to establish a proper appeal. … Aud's expert witness because the witness was not qualified to operate a BAC machine.

Andrews v. Heirs of Bellis

297 Ark. 3 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 31, 1988

There is no doubt that had the instrument last referred to been offered for recordation as a separate instrument, it would not have qualified because there is no acknowledgment or jurat. … The original was never offered in evidence at the trial nor was it established that it had been destroyed.

Davis v. Adams

231 Ark. 197 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 16, 1959

Davis had qualified by making the required bond — if her physical competency to serve had been established — and she had thereafter been removed as a result of the petition by Adams — the question would be squarely before … The record before us clearly justifies this removal.

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.

Hubbard v. State

306 Ark. 153 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 24, 1991

MICHAEL SIMON’S TESTIMONY EXPRESSING AN OPINION AS TO APPELLANT’S MENTAL CAPACITY BECAUSE HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED AS A PSYCHIATRIST. … Clearly then, with the period in excess of eight months excluded as a result of appellant’s psychiatric evaluations, the state has complied with the speedy trial rules.

Newport Manufacturing Co. v. Alton

130 Ark. 542 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 8, 1917

Holman, 90 Ark. 555 . (1) The cases last cited clearly announce the rule that an employee may continue, in the exercise of due care, to use a tool or defective piece of machinery for a reasonable time, upon promise of an … expert testimony were not sufficiently qualified.

Randy Myers v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

2022 Ark. 156 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 22, 2022

Myers also raised in his petition, but abandons on appeal, certain claims that there was no proper chain of custody established for the evidence collected; that the trial judge violated judicial ethics rules; and that he … 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 Myers’s

Robinson v. State

353 Ark. 372 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 29, 2003

This court has held that guilt can be established without eyewitness testimony and evidence of guilt is not less because it is circumstantial. Ross v. State, 346 Ark. 225 , 57 S.W.3d 152 (2001); Gregory v. … We hold that there clearly was substantial evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Robinson was guilty of first-degree murder.

Routh Wrecker Service, Inc. v. Washington

335 Ark. 232 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 19, 1998

Hence, Washington’s motion for findings of fact following a jury trial does not qualify as a Rule 52(b) motion. … The issue raised by Washington concerns judicial immunity for witnesses testifying in private litigation.

South Beach Beverage Co. v. Harris Brands, Inc.

355 Ark. 347 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2003

Pepper business operation, contrary to the case before us, was established and clearly qualified as a place ofbusiness. … This, South Beach maintains, qualifies as reasonable.

Marcyniuk v. State

436 S.W.3d 122 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 5, 2014

Appellant alleges that prejudice was established because there is “a very real likelihood that at least one of the jurors would never have accepted the defense.” … Moreover, the State asked the jury as follows: [T]o sit on a jury you have to be what’s called both life qualified and death qualified. . . .

Lacy v. State

240 Ark. 84 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 24, 1966

Ct. 891 (1953); but the Court did not hold that such a practice is, in itself, sufficient to establish discrimination in the selection of the jury.” 1 We find no merit in this point urged by the appellant. … This quoted evidence—and it is practically undisputed—clearly shows that the Jury Commissioners entirely disregarded the matter of race in selecting the jury panel. II.

Health Resources of Arkansas, Inc. v. Flener

374 Ark. 208 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 11, 2008

Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. See id. … The policy clearly explains that this special retirement benefit will be calculated using the rate being paid to the employee at the time of retirement.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Short

381 S.W.3d 834 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 16, 2011

By an order dated November 18, 2009, the county court rejected ATRS’s contention that the property qualified for an exemption. … The bedrock principles of law on this subject were established over a century ago. In the case of Brodie v.

Hendricks v. Hodges

122 Ark. 82 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 24, 1916

The purpose of those statutes was to fix a time for canvassing the returns and to put a limit upon the time in which officers may qualify. … The statute clearly contemplates that. officers elected shall immediately take office and enter upon the discharge of the duties thereof.

Kelly v. Kelly

341 Ark. 596 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 2000

Standard of Review We review chancery cases de novo on the record, and we will not reverse a finding of fact by the chancery court unless it is clearly erroneous. Ark. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Myrick v. … Here, there is no history of bonus income, and the trial court acknowledged the uncertainty of whether James would even qualify for a bonus in the foreseeable future given the business-expense calculation that would be required

Roberts v. State

2016 Ark. 118 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 17, 2016

Roberts also argues that this court should establish a mandatory postconviction proceeding and review for death-penalty defendants who waive their postconviction rights. … Indeed, issues of competency are of utmost importance in death penalty cases, and the circuit court’s fact-finding is not immune from review. See Newman v. State, 2014 Ark. 7; Harris v.

White v. Turner

203 Ark. 95 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 17, 1941

Although the scheme to defraud seems to have been clearly established, there can be no actual fraud if the land was White’s homestead. … It is quite obvious that White adopted devious methods to “cover up,” although the constitution afforded him the immunity desired.