Case law

Bennett v. State

345 Ark. 48 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 24, 2001

App. 1999) (odors may constitute probable cause if the magistrate finds the affiant qualified to know the odor — here, marijuana — and it is one sufficiently distinctive to identify a forbidden substance). … This case presents exactly those circumstances, and the trial court’s determination that the good-faith exception applied was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

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

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.

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.

McDaniel v. Spencer

457 S.W.3d 641 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 5, 2015

Article 2, § 3, of the Arkansas Constitution states, The equality of all persons before the law is recognized, and shall ever remain inviolate; nor shall any citizen ever be deprived of any right, privilege or immunity; nor … It further states that no other affidavit or verification shall be required to establish the genuineness of such signatures.

Barrera v. Vanpelt

332 Ark. 482 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 9, 1998

Vanpelt characterizes the issue of standing as one of first impression in Arkansas; if it is, it is an easy one to decide. 1 As the trial court stated in its order, § 28-40-113(a) establishes who may contest a will, and the … In addition, if William Y.’s will were set aside for some reason, Barrera also would qualify along with her siblings as an “heir” within that statutory-defined term.

ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD v. Hicks

349 Ark. 269 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 13, 2002

The trial court makes no finding that the definition of the class meets the standard established in Ferguson v. … It should be equally clear that we should reverse a class certification where an abuse of discretion results in a clearly erroneous certification.

Brown v. Cleveland

328 Ark. 73 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 1997

Brown claims that legal custody is not a prerequisite to qualify for child support under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-105 or any other statute. … Although child custody and child support are clearly separate and distinct issues, and Ark.

Sebastian County Chapter of the American Red Cross v. Weatherford

311 Ark. 656 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 1, 1993

We hold that the finding was clearly erroneous, and we reverse and remand. … He also argued that the one-dollar-per-year rental payment did not qualify as support by public funds.

Carr v. Nance

370 S.W.3d 826 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 16, 2010

The court decided that the instruction would be read to the jury and included in the instruction both the standard for punitive damages and the required elements to establish liability under § 18-11-307(1). … Clearly, by awarding Stewart $400,000, the jury decided to compensate Stewart for his transportation, lodging, and the value of his care-taking activities for Pruett during Pruett’s recuperation.

Harvison v. Charles E. Davis & Associates, Inc.

310 Ark. 104 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 1992

That affidavit clearly qualifies as proof for the Harvisons’ position and just as clearly establishes a material issue of fact regarding any underlying facts that might prohibit forfeiture. … Whether the Harvisons implicitly waived their right to forfeiture is clearly a question of fact that should have been resolved at trial. See, e.g., Moore Ford Co. v.

Hill v. Carter

357 Ark. 597 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 3, 2004

On April 9, 2002, Bond undertook an investigation to determine the eligibility of Hill to qualify as a candidate for the Central Committee position. … He chose instead to rely on the party chairman to rectify the situation, and this clearly was not sufficient to protect his rights. We further note that the election took place two years ago. As in State v.

Reid v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

380 S.W.3d 918 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 28, 2011

The standard of review in cases involving the termination of parental rights is well established. … The circuit court’s best-interest determination is not clearly erroneous.

Lovewell v. Bowen

75 Ark. 452 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 27, 1905

It established a rule of practice, and was decided prior to this trial, and it cannot be said that the rule established is a bad one, or that it works unjustly, and the court declines to overrule that decision. … When payment by others is valid and when invalid is discussed, and the line clearly marked, in Whittaker v. Watson, 68 Ark. 555 .

Jackson v. State

359 Ark. 297 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 4, 2004

The circuit court concluded that Officer Hurd: has the right to testify as an expert that he knows of his own personal knowledge from whatever the thing is because he’s already been qualified as both a slinger and a banger … The majority dismisses Officer Hurd’s testimony as merely cumulative because “duplicate testimony was presented to the jury through federal grand-jury transcripts that clearly established that Jackson was indeed a ‘banger

Slocum v. State

2013 Ark. 406 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 2013

We held that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in dismissing the habeas petition on the basis that, even if King’s DNA and fingerprints were not found on the mask, his actual innocence could not be established in … Code Ann. § 12-12-1101, and amended it to provide for DNA testing of all individuals convicted of all “qualifying offenses.” Ark.

Altice USA, Inc., D/B/A Suddenlink Communications v. City of Gurdon, Arkansas Ex Rel. Honorable Sherry Kelley, Mayor, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Cities

654 S.W.3d 641 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 10, 2022

Gurdon’s claim is no less sufficient to establish commonality. See id. … Thus, the existence of one common claim among the class clearly predominates, and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in making this finding.

State v. Jernigan

385 S.W.3d 776 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 17, 2011

The standard of review in a bench trial is not whether there is substantial evidence 1 to support the findings of the circuit court, but whether the circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance … In other words, if a candidate was unable to establish residency by showing physical presence in the requisite location, this court has allowed a candidate to establish residency by showing | indomiciliary intent in the requisite

Fryar v. Roberts

346 Ark. 432 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 1, 2001

Declarations of the parties are evidence tending to establish marriage.” Id. at 53 . … The cases of Thomas, DePotty, and Vales are clearly distinguishable from the cases reiterating our refusal to recognize common-law marriage.

Donald Adams v. State of Arkansas

617 S.W.3d 249 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 18, 2021

For example, this court has held that flight following the commission of an offense may be considered corroboration of evidence tending to establish guilt. Chapman v. State, 343 Ark. 643, 38 S.W.3d 305 (2001). … State, 335 Ark. 131, 133, 983 S.W.2d 110, 111 (1998) (Circuit court’s pretrial ruling “that the testimony would be admissible ‘with what the court knows at this time’ was clearly a preliminary or qualified ruling” that