Case law

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.

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Robinson

233 Ark. 168 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 1, 1961

It is necessary to establish the truth of the defamatory matter contained in the statement. … Clearly, we think the answer is, “Yes.” It would have been an easy matter for Mrs.

Womack v. Foster

340 Ark. 124 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 20, 2000

Two methods of voting are established by the Arkansas Constitution. … , or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

Arkansans for Healthy Eyes, a Ballot Question Committee; And Vicki Farmer, Individually and on Behalf of Arkansans for Healthy Eyes v. John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas; Safe Surgery Arkansas, a Ballot Question Committee; And Laurie Barber, M.D., Individually and on Behalf of Safe Surgery Arkansas, an Original Actionr

2020 Ark. 270 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 17, 2020

Accordingly, I find that the Sponsor, Safe Surgery Arkansas, submitted insufficient signatures to qualify for the November 3, 2020 General Election Ballot. … Under our well-established standard of review, we will accept the special master’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See Roberts v. Priest, 334 Ark. 503, 975 S.W.2d 850 (1998).

Dilday v. State

300 Ark. 249 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 30, 1989

He was too inebriated to speak clearly or to stand on his own. … The appellees in this case have no more right to special application of the law than do grocery stores and other retail establishments or manufacturing concerns.

Seelig v. Phillips County

129 Ark. 473 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 11, 1917

to be paid by the county, “agree to supply all the material and perform, in a practical manner, all of the work embraced in the adopted Phillips County, Arkansas, courthouse and jail building plans and specifications, as qualified … It is my recollection that they were to pay the cost of having them printed. ” This testimony is undisputed and it clearly establishes the fact that the contractors were not entitled to be reimbursed the amount paid by them

Hunt v. Perry

357 Ark. 224 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 29, 2004

DHS suggested to the mother, however, that an alternate plan for visitation be established, such as supervised visitation. … So, I think she’s qualified to do that. She does it on a regular basis.

Educators & Professional Life Insurance v. Jordan

259 Ark. 710 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 10, 1976

A leading case, which clearly recites the reasons for the conclusion reached, is John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Company v. Hicks, 43 Ohio App. 242 , 183 N.E 93. … However, until such proof is made the plaintiff has not established a substantive right to recover.

Vibo Corp. v. State ex rel. McDaniel

380 S.W.3d 411 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 31, 2011

The issues are clearly not the same, and the circuit court correctly declined to enforce the 2006 stay order broadly to encompass the current dispute. IV. … The burden of proof shifts to the opposing party once the moving party establishes a pri-ma facie entitlement to summary judgment, and the opposing party must demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Id.

Rush v. State

238 Ark. 149 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 18, 1964

The defense challenged the venireman for cause; the court held that he was, qualified; exceptions were saved. … Both of these matters are clearly stated in the Majority Opinion. But I do not agree with the holding of the Majority in regard to change of venue.

Loy v. State

310 Ark. 33 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 22, 1992

It clearly evidences the purpose of the solicitation as well as the means that Loy promoted to perpetrate foul play. … As such, the simulated bomb and the videotape depicting its detonation easily qualify as proof of a material fact under Rule 401.

Karl D. Roberts v. State of Arkansas

592 S.W.3d 675 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 30, 2020

Moreover, Roberts’s postconviction attorneys have established this point in spades, and the State has presented nothing to rebut it. … Accordingly, the lower court’s decision on this point is clearly erroneous, and it should be reversed.

Newton, County Judge v. Edwards

203 Ark. 18 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 10, 1941

W. 296 , the court said: “(1) It is a well established principle that a constitutional provision merely creating an office does not amount to a prohibition against legislative action varying the duties of that office. … This section provides that the qualified electors of each county shall elect a sheriff who shall be ex-officio collector of taxes, unless otherwise provided by law.

Arkansas Public Defender Commission v. Pulaski County Circuit Court

365 S.W.3d 193 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 13, 2010

Here, pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-87-212 (Repl.2005), the circuit court clearly had subject-matter jurisdiction to order the APDC to make an authorized payment in a case involving an indigent defendant. … Brown, 139 N.M. 466 , 134 P.3d 753 (2006) (holding that where a defendant's indigence has been conclusively established, he or she is entitled to obtain funding for expert witness fees regardless of whether he or she is represented

At&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission

344 Ark. 188 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 22, 2001

Thus, the AUSF established pursuant to Act 77 ensures that qualifying Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) 2 have a continuing source of subsidies to support their operations. … First, AT&T contends that the Requesting ILECs’ Toll Pool revenue replacement claims do not qualify for reimbursement under § 23-17-404(e)(4)(B).

City of Pocahontas v. Huddleston

309 Ark. 353 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 11, 1992

erroneous (clearly against the preponderance of the evidence). … The appellees counter that wearing uniforms and badges is enough to qualify as law enforcement officers. We disagree.

Special School District of Fort Smith v. Lynch

242 Ark. 385 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 24, 1967

Lynch still retain the identical rights of a teacher who completed her contract, or was it first necessary that she follow established procedures to become reinstated to active standing? Mrs. … Lynch had complied with all prerequisites, for the agreement permitting leave clearly states that reemployment is subject to a vacancy, “which, in the judgment of the Superintendent of Schools, the returning employee is qualified

Tom Steele v. John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Arkansas

609 S.W.3d 357 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 15, 2020

However, our constitution established a different regime for each proposed amendment. This court cannot change the constitution. … Clearly, by packing these proposed changes to three different parts of the Arkansas Constitution it frustrates rather than enables the electors to vote on each amendment separately, as Article 19, section 22 requires.

Bayercropsciences Lp v. Glen Hooks Michael Dougan Pratt Remmell Reed Storey Tim Fisher Victor Gray Bland Currie Gladys Whitney Frances Wilson Shackleford Adam Fisher Guy Fisher Paden Ball Gale Stewart Coy's Honey Farm, Inc. Arkansas State Plant Board, a Division of the Arkansas Department of Agriculture Arkansas State Plant Board Members in Their Offcial Capacites: Walter "Bruce" Alford Kyle Baltz Tommy Anderson Reynold Meyer Darrell Hess Marty Eaton Barry Walls Terry Fuller Mark Hopper Brad Koen Sam Stuckey Terry Stephenson Dr. Ken Korth Dr. Nathan Slaton Matthew Marsh Jason Parks Scott Milburn Dennie Stokes Mark Morgan Omp Farms, LLC Ozark Mountain Poultry, Inc. Freedom to Farm Foundation, Inc. Jason McGee Tim Gannon Leslie Brown Hollis Mankin Farmvoice Inc. Timothy Pirani Adam Henard And Jarred Hopper

638 S.W.3d 274 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 10, 2022

We hold that section 25-15-212 of the APA, does not bar the granting of circuit court clearly erred in denying Bayer’s motion to intervene. based on section 25-15-212. … Thus, we hold that the circuit court clearly erred in denying Bayer’s motion to intervene.

Lyon v. White River-Grand Prairie Irrigation District

281 Ark. 286 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 30, 1984

In attacking the establishment of this district, appellants raise four issues. … We think Act 114 of 1957, as amended, clearly anticipates agricultural irrigation purposes and agree with the findings of the Commission and the trial court.