Case law

W. M. Bashlin Co. v. Smith

277 Ark. 406 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 22, 1982

The holding was clearly to the effect that the compensation law limited the employer’s liability as well as the employee’s recovery. … In matters involving workers’ compensation benefits the employer shall be immune from third party tortfeasors’ claims. VI. Appellant argues that the verdict was excessive. We do not agree.

Green v. State

64 Ark. 523 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 8, 1898

No rule can be laid down by which it can be accurately determined how much skill, knowledge, or experience a witness must possess to qualify and entitle him to testify as an expert. … His own testimony does not clearly or satisfactorily show that he was qualified to give an opinion as an expert that would have been of any aid or assistance to the jury. Dr.

Kistner v. Cupples

372 S.W.3d 339 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 4, 2010

The Simmons court was clearly relying on the exact language that section 376.12(c)(4) now specifically instructs should not affect whether the driver provided by the lessor is an independent contractor or an employee of the … Contractor shall provide Equipment and qualified drivers who have been approved by IDI. [[Image here]] 9.

Meeks v. Meeks

290 Ark. 563 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 22, 1986

The trial court entered a final decree on January 14,1985, ordering the appellant to pay $700 per month child support and establishing visitation rights. … The chancellor heard the testimony, examined the evidence, and concluded that the appellant had not established a right to those funds as his separate property. We cannot say this decision was clearly wrong.

Edgin v. Entergy Operations, Inc.

331 Ark. 162 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 22, 1998

Surely employer Wackenhut should not be able to entice business customers by assuring them immunity from suit that might arise under § 11-9-410(a). … Arkansas statutory law establishes public policy, see Sterling Drug, Inc. v.

Saxton v. Arkansas Gazette Co.

264 Ark. 133 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 17, 1978

Further, the use of the words "to any other authority" in this section of the Act clearly indicates that the privilege asserted here is applicable to civil proceedings. … The reason asserted for this immunity is that public officials should be unhampered, or uninhibited, in any way, in serving the public will.

Primm v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance

324 Ark. 409 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 13, 1996

Clearly, A.M.I. on the damages, accounts for that. … The Court allowed the Second and Third, and it disallowed the First, and I think clearly that was established by the evidence, it should have been granted.

North Little Rock Urban Renewal Agency v. Van Bibber

252 Ark. 1248 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 24, 1972

We cannot say that the chancellor’s finding that an assignment of the lease had been made to James by Nelson and ratified by Van Bibber is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … As one method of establishing the taking of the land and the lands remaining, the Crawfords were allowed to show that their net profits from the operation of the cafe were $4,000 per year and this net profit per annum was

Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. v. Beadles Enterprises, Inc.

367 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 2006

In bench trials, the standard of review on appeal is not whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the court, but whether the judge’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance … Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 311 Ark. 424 , 844 S.W.2d 337 (1993) (supplemental opinion), answers to interrogatories may qualify as admissions by a party-opponent which are not hearsay, as defined, and therefore may constitute

Tackett v. State

298 Ark. 20 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 20, 1989

Tackett also argues that the State failed to prove the cause of the victim’s death in that (1) the physician (Eugene Shatz) who testified as to the cause of death was not qualified to do so and (2) even if he had been qualified … produce the result and the conduct of the defendant clearly insufficient.

Williamson v. Sanofi Winthrop Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

347 Ark. 89 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 29, 2001

Clearly, the answer for all potential class members is “No.” But the case does not turn on that question. It would be the same if Williamson listed a common question as “Do all the plaintiffs speak English?” … and “Did you, the employee, meet the sales requirements to qualify under either the initial brochure or the monthly update reports?” These are the common questions.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Hill

316 Ark. 251 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 7, 1994

That Report clearly and specifically determined that the U.S. … The court in Eu considered the severability of a void provision in a constitutional amendment establishing term limits.

Nichols v. Wray

325 Ark. 326 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1996

The statute declares that the establishment of the account as joint tenants provides conclusive evidence of the intention of all parties. … Sisco’s intention in making the transfer was to divest herself of ownership to qualify for public-nursing-home benefits. Ms.

Watson v. State

444 S.W.3d 835 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 8, 2014

We cannot say that the circuit court’s finding is clearly erroneous. … This court has observed that the protections of the Fifth Amendment do not extend to demonstrative, physical tests but are intended to immunize a defendant from providing the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative

Chatelain v. Kelley

322 Ark. 517 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 20, 1995

Rev. 465 (1991), a majority of the states which have considered the issue have interpreted similar legislation to hold that the death of a fetus qualifies as the death of a person. … The Arizona Court pointed out that the law clearly would allow a cause of action for a prenatal injury resulting in the death of a child born alive, and it is thus illogical to say that a prenatal injury resulting in the

Little River County Board of Education v. Ashdown Special School District

156 Ark. 549 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 22, 1923

It clearly appears from the language of the act that he is either a county officer or an employee of the county. … The county board of education of each county shall be elected by the qualified electors of each county at the annual school election.

Crosser v. Henson

357 Ark. 635 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 10, 2004

These circumstances are sufficient for the Arkansas probate court to have had jurisdiction to establish the guardianship in 1998. … We view this as a custody-modification case, since the Crossers clearly had custody of Cecileigh by virtue of the 1998 guardianship.

Auditor ex rel. State v. Woodruff

2 Ark. 73 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1839

The second and third grounds of demurrer specially set forth, are, ih our opinion, clearly untenable; for, although the plaintiff, by making profert of the original writing obligatory, instead of excusing the profert thereof … and fully established by authority, than that by pleading to the action, (and a demurrer is regarded as a plea to the action), without oyer, every objection to the oyer, as that it has not been granted at all, or has been

C.B. v. State

406 S.W.3d 796 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 24, 2012

This court will not reverse the circuit court’s decision unless it was clearly erroneous. Id. … Kittrell “clearly established the mental and emotional state and this was supported by the testimony of Appellant’s mother, Donna Davis.” In its order, the circuit court acknowledged that Dr.

De Julius v. Sumner

373 Ark. 156 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 10, 2008

Dejulius has not established that he was prevented from doing so earlier. Dejulius has also failed to show that his interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. … In fact, at the final approval hearing, Dejulius’s counsel volunteered his opinion that the class counsel were qualified and experienced and reached the settlement properly.