Case law

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.

Edwards v. Nelson

372 Ark. 300 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 7, 2008

Code Ann. § 28-48-101 (b)(3) (Repl. 2004), he was not qualified to serve in that capacity. … Amendment 80 § 6(A) provides that circuit courts are established as the trial courts of original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters not otherwise assigned pursuant to the Arkansas Constitution.

Daniels v. Dennis

365 Ark. 338 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 23, 2006

Act 1448 clearly prohibits a person who was appointed to serve as circuit judge from being a candidate for any circuit judgeship in the same judicial district to which he or she was appointed. … Judicial qualifications are set out in Amendment 80, § 16, which provides with respect to circuit judges that he or she must have been a licensed attorney for at least six years and a qualified elector within the geographic

Britt v. State

261 Ark. 488 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 18, 1977

such a change in the established law is intended. … It should be noted that the first sentence of the section clearly states that, when the “same conduct,” i.e., the robbery of A, B, and C, establish the commission of more than one offense, the defendant (X) may be prosecuted

Barnes v. Barnes

311 Ark. 287 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 14, 1992

Sufficiency of the evidence Barnes argues in his fourth point that there was insufficient evidence to establish paternity. … Although Barnes argues he did not know the expert’s name who performed the test, the report clearly indicated the test was supervised by Dr.

First National Bank of Fort Smith v. Brunk

170 Ark. 583 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 22, 1926

The testimony was therefore clearly admissible. … It was error to admit this piece of testimony as a circumstance tending to establish the fact that appellant was not an innocent purchaser of the draft for value.

Nelson v. Wood

199 Ark. 1019 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 19, 1940

Hansel Nelson would have to qualify in the Union probate court as James Word Nelson’s guardian. J. … established.’

Rector v. State

280 Ark. 385 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 17, 1983

In the Fifth Circuit the court assumed, without deciding, that death-qualified jurors are prone to convict, but the court nevertheless upheld the death-qualified jury. … We must conclude, as we did on the earlier appeal, that the trial judge’s decision is not clearly erroneous.

Webster v. State

284 Ark. 206 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 10, 1984

The trial court may limit questioning once it is established that a juror is or is not qualified. See Perry v. State, 277 Ark. 357 , 642 S.W.2d 865 (1982). … When the totality of the circumstances is considered, it was not clearly error to admit the in-court identification.

Bakos v. Kryder

260 Ark. 621 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 8, 1976

I hereby establish a fund to be called “The Bakos Fund.” … These provisions clearly reflect that the testatrix, contrary to appellants’ assertions, did not intend that any part of her estate should pass intestate, but meant for all funds except the specific legacies to become a part

Frank Barton, Anita Bell, and James Pulliaum, in Their Official Capacities as the Crittenden County Board of Election Commissioners v. Shirley P. Brown and Lavonda L. Taylor

2024 Ark. 152 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 17, 2024

The pertinent provisions of section 7-5-418 are set forth below: (a)(1)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (a)(1)(B) of this section, early voting shall be available to any qualified elector who applies to … While these terms may have some overlap, the Arkansas code clearly distinguishes the two terms and treats them differently. So should we.

Stilley v. Priest

341 Ark. 329 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 18, 2000

That requested change is best illustrated by the following: ESTABLISHING THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FUND, REGULATED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, TO PROVIDE GRANTS TO QUALIFIED HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES … We clearly held in Finn v.

Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Croom

225 Ark. 312 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 4, 1955

It was further stated “the Palmer case and its predecessors have established the rule that in a proceeding such as this one, brought under Ark. … W. 2d 968 ], we think, is clearly decisive of all the issues in this case,” and quotes extensively from the opinion.

MARK DAVID JOHNSON v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

534 S.W.3d 143 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 4, 2018

This court does not reverse the denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Williams v. State, 2016 Ark. 459 , 504 S.W.3d 603 . … Moreover, Johnson did not demonstrate that either potential witness could have been qualified to give admissible evidence on accident reconstruction.

Bell v. State

317 Ark. 289 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 13, 1994

He opined that Bell “qualified for rehabilitation.” John McCord, an investigator with the Arkansas State Police, testified for the defense as a hostile witness. … A criminal information is sufficient to establish that the offense charged is of a serious and violent nature. Tucker, supra; Vickers, supra.

Coffelt v. Arkansas State Highway Commission

285 Ark. 314 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 25, 1985

grantor’s remaining property in and to said freeway, provided, however, that such remaining property shall abut upon and have access to said frontage road which will be connected to the freeway only at such points as may be established … Coffelt was not shown to be an expert or to be qualified as a landowner to testify as to the value of her land.

Neeve v. City of Caddo Valley

351 Ark. 235 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 5, 2002

bars the establishment of the Caddo Valley City Court. … The word “hereby” clearly indicates that the city court was established immediately, and not upon the appointment of a judge.

See v. State

296 Ark. 498 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 1988

At trial, the state’s proof clearly showed that the appellant shot and killed the two victims. … Code Ann. § 5-65-103 (1987), establishes 0.10% as the legal intoxication rate.

Stewart v. State

233 Ark. 458 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 17, 1961

The photographs introduced in evidence in the present case meet one or all of the above conditions and were clearly admissible. … He stated he didn’t pick the jury panels on a personal basis — just who he thought was best qualified. Mr. Jack L.

Schubert v. Target Stores, Inc.

360 Ark. 404 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 27, 2005

Under Louisiana Law, a principal which is a statutory employer of the plaintiff is immune from tort liability. … App. 214 , 706 S.W.2d 199 (1986), is clearly not binding on this court.