Case law

Ragland v. Pittman Garden Center, Inc.

307 Ark. 374 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 9, 1991

After doing so, he again found that the employees of the Pittman appellees qualified for the exemption. The commissioner then filed a second appeal. … This they failed to do, and the chancellor clearly erred in finding otherwise.

Thomson v. Littlefield

319 Ark. 648 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 27, 1995

In its order granting the Thomsons’ request, the trial court established a date and protocol for the testing and specifically directed that representatives of Littlefield Oil must be present when the Thomsons’ expert and … Tritt clearly was entitled to the sudden emergency instruction, since he did not create the emergency. Smith v. Stevens, 313 Ark. 534 , 855 S.W.2d 323 (1993).

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.

Ex parte Reynolds

52 Ark. 330 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1889

limitation as here used, may in some measure be elucidated by recalling the restrictions the Legislature could impose upon that privilege iá a statutory proceeding unknown to the common law; and also by referring to the established … But,” continues the court, “ we can find no evidence on the part of the framers of the Constitution to fortify this extension of the right with immunities and privileges unknown in the history of the law relating to juries

Joyner v. State

303 S.W.3d 54 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 2, 2009

For the evidence to be admissible, the defendant must offer proof (1) that the prior act clearly occurred; (2) that the acts closely resembled those of the present case; (3) that the prior act is clearly relevant to a material … There is no substantial evidence to prove that the alleged sexual abuse by Chuck McGhee in 2001 “clearly occurred.”

Twist v. Mullinix

126 Ark. 427 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 18, 1916

It is the duty of the trial court to set aside a verdict which is clearly against the weight of the evidence. … The word “merely” in the language quoted does not qualify the finding of the court bn that issue.

Jackson v. State

427 S.W.3d 607 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 16, 2013

Does it lomean “clearly against the greater weight of the evidence?” If so, then that seems to fall short of the “clearly erroneous standard.” … of paperwork may be a presumptively-appropriate starting point to gauge the justifiable duration of an initial traffic stop, Menne, Yar-brough, and Sims should not be construed as creating some sort of safe harbor that immunizes

In Re Estate of Conover

304 Ark. 268 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 21, 1990

Clearly, the testamentary trust was established for that purpose under the residuary clause in Jackson’s will, which contained the majority of his estate. … The specific bequest of the stock is not mentioned, and in fact in the language describing the interest to be transferred to the testator’s other children, the following qualifying language is used, “which has not been distributed

Second Baptist Church v. Little Rock Historic District Commission

293 Ark. 155 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 20, 1987

With the passage of the Historic District Act, the Arkansas Legislature allowed qualified municipalities to take steps to protect places of historic interest within their boundaries. Ark. Stat. … Establishing that different applicants are treated differently does not prove the denial of equal protection. City of Sante Fe v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 73 N.M. 1401 , 389 P.2d 19 (1964).

Davis v. State

314 Ark. 257 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 4, 1993

Clearly, as Davis points out, fundamental fairness entitles indigent defendants to “an adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly within the adversary system.” Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 612 (1974). … that ‘death qualification’ in fact produces juries somewhat more conviction prone than non-death qualified juries.

City of Little Rock v. Breeding

273 Ark. 437 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 20, 1981

‘However, zoning regulations and ordinances are not immune to appellate review. … This was the case that established the so-called Pfeifer Rule wherein the court stated: “We are of the opinion that the evidence establishes very clearly and beyond controversy that the locality in question is a business

Whiteside v. Arkansas Parole Board

492 S.W.3d 489 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 19, 2016

Whiteside appeals the order, and he contends that he established a liberty interest to support his claim. … Whiteside alleged that the Board gave no reason for the deferral, but the document that he provided clearly states that the deferral was for completion of the program.

Spurgeon v. State

160 Ark. 112 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 9, 1923

This petition was verified by defendant as required by law, and was supported by the affidavits pf seventy qualified electors of the county, who were actual' residents of the county and not related to the defendant in any … The contention is that it is established by undisputed evidence that the confession was extorted by cruel and coercive treatment.

Chisum v. State

273 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 26, 1981

Here the trial judge’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Chisum’s statement itself shows that he remembered many of the pertinent events. … Here Moreland’s extensive practical experience in observing and assisting with autopsies qualified him to describe what he saw.

Earls v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

518 S.W.3d 81 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 11, 2017

The majority reverses the order terminating Jacob Earls’s parental rights on the basis that the record does not show that “Earls’s legal status as a ... biological parent was established,” and, therefore, he had no rights … As the biological father, he qualifies as a “parent” under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(40) (Repl. 2015).

City of Stuttgart v. McCuing

218 Ark. 34 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 13, 1950

provisions of this amendment by taxation or by sale of bonds for a specific purpose shall ever be used for any other or different purpose, “ (6) It shall be the duty of the mayor and city council or other governing body established … That case, we think, is clearly distinguishable and in fact supports our views above expressed.

State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. Gus Blass Co.

193 Ark. 1159 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 10, 1937

This occupation was clearly one of common right and remains so subject to and limited by legitimate statutory regulations. … policies of The Gus Blass Company; further, that only qualified licensed optometrists authorized to practice should be employed.

Bell v. McDonald

432 S.W.3d 18 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 20, 2014

Wingard requested that scientific paternity testing be conducted to formally establish paternity of appellant. … We therefore held that our statute, which gives an illegitimate child 180 days to make her claim, clearly does not violate the equal-protection clause. Id.

Constant v. Hodges

292 Ark. 439 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 15, 1987

These large lots on a major arterial represent the only way that you can have an established residential character that can be preserved. * * * * . . . … We do not reverse a finding of fact by a chancellor unless it is clearly wrong. ARCP 52; Liles v. Liles, 289 Ark. 159 , 711 S.W.2d 447 (1986).

David Tollett, a Resident, Qualified Elector, and the Republican Party Nominee for Arkansas House District 12 v. Jimmie L. Wilson

608 S.W.3d 602 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 15, 2020

CV-20-499 Opinion Delivered: October 15, 2020 DAVID TOLLETT, A RESIDENT, QUALIFIED ELECTOR AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NOMINEE FOR APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY ARKANSAS HOUSE … Tollett also argued that the record established that Wilson was ineligible to serve in the Arkansas General Assembly.