Case law

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).

Borchert v. Scott

248 Ark. 1050 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 19, 1970

Furthermore, these funds clearly qualify as moneys received from sources other than taxes, as that term is ordinarily used.” (Emphasis supplied). … The funds derived from the excise tax levied under Act 239 are clearly state revenue and clearly within the prohibition of Amendment 20 if they are paid into the state treasury.

Daniel v. Spivey

386 S.W.3d 424 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 2, 2012

We will not reverse a finding made by the circuit court unless it is clearly erroneous. Stills v. Stills, 2010 Ark. 132 , 361 S.W.3d 823 . … “Something more must be shown to qualify as standing in loco parentis.” Id. at 535 , 867 S.W.2d at 456 .

Murphy v. Epes

283 Ark. 517 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 29, 1984

The minimum qualifying income for a conventional loan of $37,000 is $21,469.68 per year. The qualifying annual income under the AHDA Single Family Bonds is $18,070.32. The median income in Arkansas is $19,737.00. … This court’s standard for reviewing a Chancellor’s finding of fact is that his decision will be affirmed unless clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

Arkansas Rural Medical Practice Student Loan & Scholarship Board v. Luter

292 Ark. 259 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 26, 1987

In 1949 the legislature passed Act 131 creating the Arkansas Rural Medical Practice Student Loan and Scholarship Board to promote medical practice in rural areas. 1 The act provided for a five member board, established methods … The Board notified him that Batesville, having a population of 8,241, did not qualify as a rural community. Dr. Luter refused payment of the notes and in October of 1985 the Board filed suit against him. Dr.

Smith v. State

256 Ark. 425 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 22, 1974

was time spent in jail prior to determination of guilt rather than prior to pronouncement of sentence and that all delays in the period before trial were at the request of Smith, “including the exemption for legislative immunity … The official accusation by information of the prosecuting attorney was sufficient justification for holding appellant in custody until his entitlement to bail was established. Fikes v. State, supra.

Cairo & Fulton Railroad v. Parks

32 Ark. 131 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1877

The power of the courts to pass upon this question, is well established, but it is equally well established, that the courts should not declare an act to be unconstitutional, unless clearly satisfied that such is the case … full list of lands acquired, by grant, donation, or subscription, in aid of the construction of its road; which lands shall not be listed or subject to taxation; until ■ conveyed to actual purchasers by such company,” most clearly

Cox v. State

345 Ark. 391 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 28, 2001

State, 312 Ark. 48 , 846 S.W.2d 663 (1993) provides: Accordingly the defendant must first establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination which the appellant clearly did in this case when he pointed to a peremptory … The Supreme Court then concludes that “ ‘[a] single invidiously discriminatory governmental act’ is not ‘immunized by the absence of such discrimination in the making of other comparable decisions.’ ” Id.

DeSoto Gathering Co. v. Hill ‎(16-990)‎

531 S.W.3d 396 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 30, 2017

the requirement to qualify a public forum. … The administrative nature of the forum was clearly manifested by the county judge in a letter he wrote that established the guidelines for the hearing.

Armstrong v. Union Trust Co.

113 Ark. 509 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 1914

Jackson, 95 Ark. 135 , as follows: “Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary, qualify or contradict, to add to or subtract from, the absolute terms of a valid written contract containing no ambiguity. ’ ’ Chief Justice Shaw … That case was correctly decided, but it is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar, and does not conflict with the rule here announced.

Guthrie v. Baker

224 Ark. 752 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 7, 1955

The trial court therefore held incompetent all testimony offered by appellant on the above issue, and likewise held incompetent testimony offered by appellee to establish the validity of the “Harriett” votes. … These two Acts were considered and clearly distinguished in the Parsons case, supra.

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.

Gildehaus v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

503 S.W.3d 789 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 1, 2016

This finding by the Board is not clearly erroneous. … , operation, or contractual branding of another permitted liquor establishment.

Heilman v. Martin

2 Ark. 158 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1840

therefore, devolved upon the party controverting the jurisdiction by plea, to set forth in his plea, in addition to such facts as would divest the court of its apparent right of jurisdiction, such other facts as should clearly … Heilman, on the one hand, insists that he was the guardian.of Martin, appointed and qualified according to law, when the services and labor for which he is sued in this action, were done and performed: and that an action

Williams v. State

254 Ark. 799 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1973

post-conviction relief for the reasons stated as follows: “Appellant’s unrebutted evidence that Negroes were systematically excluded from or included in token numbers only upon the jury venires of Ashley County, Arkansas established … bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court concerning rights and prohibitions under the provisions of the United States Constitution and, there is no question that the United States Supreme Court has spoken clearly

Bockman v. World Insurance

223 Ark. 665 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 17, 1954

In determining this issue, this Court, on appeal here, has long been committed to the following rules of law, so well established that citation of authorities is unnecessary: We are required to view the evidence in the light … Yes, sir, I have more than I can look after. ’ ’ Two prominent and qualified practicing physicians in Helena testified on behalf of the insurance companies. Dr. Storm, in effect, testified that he examined Dr.

Nicholson v. City of Forrest City

216 Ark. 808 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 6, 1950

known nature of much interstate selling by itinerant solicitors negatives such permanence in location, and the enactment was not to be saved by the mere possibility of exceptional non-discriminatory cases under it. 1 The established … As was pointed out in the Nippert case this conclusion clearly does not mean that there can be no valid taxes levied on acts or things which are in the course of interstate commerce.

Kelly v. Kelly

381 S.W.3d 817 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 16, 2011

Lax acknowledged that at the least the transaction qualified as a constructive gift, particularly in light of David Sr.’s clear intent to make a gift to his children. … As we have previously recognized, the key determination in establishing that a gift has been made is whether reasonable minds would conclude from attending circumstances that the purpose was present.

Bailey v. Commerce Union Bank

223 Ark. 686 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 17, 1964

It did not establish a rule of property in the sense that anyone has patterned his conduct in reliance upon the case. … That is, it is pretty certain that no creditor, owning a usurious contract, has persuaded his debtor to transfer the prop-' erty to a third person for the sole purpose of immunizing the contract from attack.

McEuen Burial Ass'n v. Arkansas Burial Ass'n Board

298 Ark. 572 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 8, 1989

In response to Act 443 of 1987, the Board amended its Rule 18 to establish new minimum rates and added Rules 38, 39, and 40. … The words of this section of the act clearly establish that it is not necessary that the injury already have occurred or that a person show he was affected by it in order to obtain a declaratory judgment.