Case law

Hobbs v. Jones

412 S.W.3d 844 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 22, 2012

Where a legislative body has declared a policy and fixed a primary standard, it may generally delegate the authority to establish rules, regulations, or minimum standards that are reasonably necessary to execute the expressed … Third, determining the methodology and the chemicals to be used are matters best left to the Department of Corrections to determine because it has personnel better qualified to make such determinations.

St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Hydrick

109 Ark. 231 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 7, 1913

The fact that the doctors rendered the accounts to the appellee, and that he acquiesced in the amounts thereof tends to establish the fact that appellee was indebted to the physicians for professional services in the sum … Cantrell, 37 Ark. 522 , this court, in commenting upon a similar instruction, said that it was “clearly correct.”

Rees v. Smith

301 S.W.3d 467 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 2, 2009

However, there is no indication that the trial court was unaware of the law; appellants’ counsel clearly explained the availability of Rule 37 sanctions at the pretrial hearing. … Everett, appellee’s purported expert witness, because he did not qualify as an expert.

Josephs v. Briant

108 Ark. 171 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 5, 1913

Shirey, lived at Minturn, Lawrence County, Arkansas, and was assassinated in March, 1910, and appellant qualified as executor of his last will and testament. … The rulings of the court in permitting appellee to testify as above indicated were clearly erroneous and call for a reversal of the case.

Billingsley v. Lipscomb

211 Ark. 45 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 27, 1947

Conceding the sufficiency of the proof to establish these defects in the sale, they do not suffice to nullify the confirmation decree as none of them relate to the power to sell for the taxes admittedly due and-unpaid on … These cases have never been overruled or qualified. There was a departure, more apparent than real, from this holding in the case of Waggoner v. McLaughlin, 33 Ark. 195 , where a tax deed to a tenant was canceled.

Skokos v. Skokos

344 Ark. 420 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 19, 2001

Theodore established a twenty-five-year possessory interest in these two properties. … She also fails to show the trial judge was clearly erroneous in accepting the valuation method utilized by Theodore’s expert testimony.

Gill v. Arkansas Employment Security Division

306 Ark. 164 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 24, 1991

Shortly thereafter, he was advised by AESD that the agency had established 3.4 percent (the amount fixed by statute for new employers generally) as the experience rate applicable to his new firm. Ark. … But equally as clearly, those requests could not have related to a June 1987 acquisition and the resulting transfer of experience, and it is that acquisition to which the chancery court referred.

Berks v. State

501 S.W.3d 366 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 27, 2016

Deyoub specifically addressed the question of whether Berks qualified under the legal criteria of the statute, and, although he considered Berks’s history of treatment in his evaluation, he concluded that Berks failed to … Berks provided no supporting facts to establish that Dr.

Gibson v. Heiman

261 Ark. 236 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 7, 1977

The determination whether a non-expert witness has sufficient knowledge of the matter in question or has had sufficient opportunity for observation to be qualified to state an opinion lies largely within the sound judicial … discretion of the trial judge and is not reviewable on appeal unless so clearly erroneous as to manifest an abuse of discretion.

Laughlin v. State

316 Ark. 489 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 28, 1994

He answered questions clearly and gave sufficient detail of the acts committed by the appellant. … This testimony clearly qualifies as rape by deviate sexual behavior. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-14-101 (l)(A), 5-14-103 (1987).

Ben M. Hogan Company, Inc. v. Nichols

254 Ark. 771 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1973

This testimony conclusively establishes that Dr. … That rule seems clearly applicable here.

Hoyle v. State

371 Ark. 495 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 2007

With regard to the manslaughter convictions, Hoyle argues that the evidence failed to establish that he acted recklessly. … This evidence coupled with the toxicology report that established that Hoyle had methamphetamine in his system at the time of the accident and Dr.

UHS of Arkansas, Inc. v. City of Sherwood

296 Ark. 97 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 20, 1988

An applicant must establish not only a sufficient interest, but also that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter, impair or impede an ability to protect one’s interest and that the interest is not adequately … A party qualifies as having sufficient interest to intervene, where, as a result of a ruling on a governmental regulation, the party would suffer economic damage. 26 Fed. Proc., L. Ed. § 59:279.

Robert Holland v. State of Arkansas

645 S.W.3d 318 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 16, 2022

We will not reverse a circuit court’s denial of a Rule 37.5 petition unless the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Coakley, 2021 Ark. 207, at 3, 633 S.W.3d at 330. … Bare allegations of prejudice by counsel’s conduct during voir dire that are unsupported by any showing of actual prejudice do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Id.

Brooks v. Pullen

187 Ark. 80 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 27, 1933

Appellants, Brooks and Dodd, filed, in the circuit court of Washington County, a petition for a writ of mandamus, which contained the following allegations: Petitioners are residents and qualified electors of Washington County … The present proceeding is not therefore one to establish a right, but is a proceeding, under authority of law, clearly given to all persons to inspect the certificate, tally sheets and poll books which the law requires the

Wooten v. State

220 Ark. 750 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 16, 1952

No grounds for disqualifying any juror were shown and they were therefore presumed to be qualified. … Clearly, in the circumstances, it was within the province of the jury to consider this evidence and reach its own conclusion as to the source of the blood.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Pierce

435 S.W.3d 469 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 29, 2014

The Martin court explained: As the New Jersey Supreme Court noted, the provision of the MCCA establishing that it supersedes conflicting provisions of the federal code indicates that the MCCA establishes a separate method … The method established is generally much more lenient in the exclusion of resources than SSI standards.

Riddick v. Streett

313 Ark. 706 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 5, 1993

The Highway Commission was dismissed prior to trial on the ground of sovereign immunity. … Vinson’s deed to assist him in establishing what certain angles should be on the Official Replat.

Fort Smith & Van Buren District v. Scott

103 Ark. 405 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 22, 1912

The granting of continuances, as has .been uniformly held, is within the sound discretion of the trial court; and, unless such discretion appears clearly to have been abused, it is not the practice to set aside a judgment … It is next contended that certain witnesses were not qualified to express opinions upon the value of the land taken, and that their testimony was incompetent.

Oliphant v. Oliphant

177 Ark. 613 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 18, 1928

Bishop, in his excellent work on Marriage and Divorce, vol. 2, p. 520-521, §§ 1360 and 1361, says: £ ‘ Then, remembering that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused, we should be able to discern clearly that … the court rendering the judgment, upon which the court may forthwith annul the divorce. ’ ’ A divorce a vinculo matrimonii dissolves the marital bonds absolutely and restores each spouse to all . rights, privileges and immunities