Case law

Jackson v. State

142 Ark. 96 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 2, 1920

It was the theory of the defendant that the child was conceived before the 23rd day of August, 1918, and as tending to establish that fact he introduced as a witness Dr. … The court further stated that 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.

Baptist Health v. Murphy

365 Ark. 115 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 2, 2006

The Court interprets this regulation to require that hospitals grant access to physicians who qualify under the institutions criteria for training, competency, and fitness for the purpose of treating patients within the facility … This finding is clearly erroneous.

Cherokee Nation Businesses, LLC v. Gulfside Casino Partnership; Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration; And Arkansas Racing Commission

614 S.W.3d 811 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 4, 2021

Apart from the threshold timeliness requirement, Rule 24(a)(2) establishes three requirements for intervention of right: (1) the applicant must have a recognized interest in the subject matter of the primary litigation … Cherokee asserts a sufficient interest in the litigation based on its status as the only qualified applicant for the Pope County casino license.

Smith v. State Board of Law Examiners

357 Ark. 628 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 10, 2004

We review bar admission and reinstatement cases de novo and will not reverse the findings of fact of the Law Examiners unless they are clearly erroneous. … A de novo review of the record determines whether the factual findings were clearly erroneous or whether the results reached were arbitrary or groundless. Lwellen v.

Heath v. Research-Cottrell, Inc.

258 Ark. 813 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 1975

Under well established law, appellee, Research-Cottrell, Inc., has the burden of clearly proving any right to an exemption. C. J. C. Corporation v. Cheney, Commissioner, 239 Ark. 541 , 390 S.W.2d 437 (1965). … This was clearly the purpose of the tax exemption. Appellee, to qualify for the pollution use tax exemption, must fit precisely within the statutory definition.

Arkansas Fire & Police Pension Review Board v. Stephens

309 Ark. 537 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 1992

The usage is clearly in the present tense, and it would require a distortion of the language to reach the result appellees favor. … As to the matter of liberal construction, that broad rule of construction has its established and proper place in the law, but is seldom conclusive per se. It is but one of several aids of statutory construction. N.

Pruett v. State

282 Ark. 304 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 30, 1984

However, the jury finally selected was qualified within the meaning of the Witherspoon doctrine. … In my view the appellant had a right to prove that death-qualified jurors are more prone to conviction than jurors who are not so qualified, and to further prove that the jury in this case was so qualified. Grigsby v.

Hambay v. Williams

335 Ark. 352 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 10, 1998

It was also alleged in Count Two that this tax was not approved by the qualified electors, as required by Ark. Const, art. 5, § 38. … The issues under Count Two relating to Act 916 and Amendment 74 are simply not addressed, and they clearly allege an illegal exaction of a different stripe.

Weiss v. McFadden

353 Ark. 868 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 26, 2003

Once a moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Id. … Section 26-51-307(c) clearly provides that cost of contributions to a retirement plan may not be deducted in computing income for State tax purposes.

Dickinson v. Suntrust National Mortgage Inc.

451 S.W.3d 576 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2014

The Statutory Foreclosure Act establishes a system of nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings as an alternative to judicial foreclosures. … And when the General Assembly has demonstrated the ability to include qualifying statutory language in a statute, but chooses not to do so in a particular statute, Arkansas courts infer the omission was deliberate and evidences

Ross v. State

300 Ark. 369 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 1989

Clearly, the police had probable cause to arrest the appellant. We also find no merit in the appellant’s argument that Payton v. … Appellant argues on appeal that Hendrix was not qualified to testify as an expert on the point of origin and cause of the fire.

Perry v. Baptist Health

358 Ark. 238 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 24, 2004

schedule of qualified surgeons for the purpose of providing emergency care at Baptist Medical Center. … Although appellant received benefits from his participation in the trauma-call schedule, in my view, the complaint clearly established that the benefits were merely incidental to the contract between Arkansas Trauma and Baptist

Thornbrough v. Williams

225 Ark. 709 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 12, 1955

Before we discuss the above questions it is proper to point out the well established rule of construction of legislative acts to the effect that such acts are presumed to be constitutional. … From page 816 of the Arkansas Reports we quote: ‘ ‘ This court has always held that, before it may strike down an act of the Legislature on the ground of unconstitutionality, it must clearly appear that the act is at variance

Nance v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

316 Ark. 43 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 1994

Nance argues that custody may only be established pursuant to a divorce, and as Mr. … Nance’s home qualifies as information “relating to representation” of Ms. Nance. We need not dwell on Model Rule 1.6, however, as the matter of attorney-client privilege is clearly regulated by Ark. R. Evid. 502(b).

Maulding v. Scott

8 Ark. 88 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1852

these words, clearly and plainly denotes an intention to restrict the limitation over to the death of the first devisee. … A series of adjudications have established a definite meaning to these words until they have become a rule of property, which we should be careful not to invade.

Jones v. Cheney

253 Ark. 926 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 2, 1973

Ann. §§ 12-2701 — 12-2709 (Repl. 1968), established the Quasi-Judicial Retirement System for the State of Arkansas. … Cheney’s rights were clearly defined in Act 148 of 1965 and his rights became consummate when he fulfilled the service requirements created by the Act.

Matthews v. State

352 Ark. 166 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 6, 2003

The evidence established that, after learning that the victim carried money, appellant’s motive was to rob the victim. … Isaac as a certified interpreter or that the trial court qualified her as a non-certified court interpreter pursuant to this Court’s directives. It does appear, however, that Ms.

The Travelers Indemnity Company and Stephen E. Goldman v. the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas

2022 Ark. 146 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 2022

, 2022 Ark. 32, 639 S.W.3d 319 (holding that although appellant had presented three points in the interlocutory appeal, the only issue that we had jurisdiction to review was whether appellant was entitled to sovereign immunity … Thus, that case is clearly distinguishable.

Boone v. State

282 Ark. 274 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 30, 1984

The Assistant State Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy on the child testified that, based on his findings, he 'made a diagnosis of “battered child syndrome” and established the cause of death to be a blow to the abdomen … In order to qualify as a dying declaration, the statement must refer to the cause of death.

Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. Harper

249 Ark. 606 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 7, 1970

W. 2d 886 , for the proposition that evidence of what the condemnor paid for other lands is inadmissible in establishing the market value of the lands taken. … The cross-examining attorney, however, is not entitled to embark upon a fishing expedition with immunity from any unfavorable information he may elicit.