Case law

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.

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.

Logan v. Moody

219 Ark. 697 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 10, 1951

In effect the Court held that custom and usage were sufficient to override the clear wording of the said order of 1926 which established two distinct precincts. … The quoted language is clearly in point, and requires a holding that no voter in Boas-North could vote in Boas-South, or vice-versa.

Moore v. State

268 Ark. 171 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 3, 1980

It's the Court's view that the probable cause existed to search the vehicle and this probable cause was fully established only very shortly before the vehicle was searched and that is, they established the gray station wagon … Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977), which has been cited as establishing the "suitcase doctrine."

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.

Arkansas State Board of Optometry v. Dodge

210 Ark. 404 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 30, 1946

The citizens of each state of the United States are, under* this statute, entitled to all the privileges and immunities accorded citizens of this state. “The justice of such a statute is obvious. … When a nonresident defendant establishes an office or agency for the transaction of business in any county in this state under this statute, he thereby voluntarily appoints his own agent, in charge of said office or agency

Despain v. Bradburn

372 Ark. 272 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 10, 2008

Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) ], common-law liability is "premised on the existence of a legal duty," and a tort judgment therefore establishes that the defendant has violated … Clearly the MDA preempts states from setting up regulatory systems that compete with the regulatory systems set up by the federal government under the MDA. The state's common law on tort is no such regulatory system.

Zachary Holly v. State of Arkansas

2026 Ark. 61 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 16, 2026

Thus, the circuit court did not clearly err by denying this claim of ineffective assistance. II. … Walz was qualified to diagnosis FASD, Holly presented no evidence that Dr. Hanlon was not. In fact, the circuit court concluded that he was so qualified.

Gurdon & Fort Smith Railroad v. Vaught

97 Ark. 234 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 1911

The question as to whether or not a railroad company has abandoned a right-of-way acquired by it is to a great extent one of intent; but such intention can be established by the acts of the company clearly indicating its … In the case at bar the testimony clearly establishes the fact that the railroad company made no effort or attempt at any time to take advantage of the grant that was given to it of this right-of-way.

Rebecca Nichols v. James Swindoll and Chuck Gibson

2026 Ark. 42 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 5, 2026

Swindoll claimed that this testimony was an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that it was clearly hearsay. … App. 477, 469 S.W.3d 805, is 16 clearly distinguishable, as the moving party in that case presented evidence that the circuit court had called his counsel an obscene name

Anderson v. Sharp County

295 Ark. 366 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 9, 1988

Defendant, Leslie Anderson, was County Judge of Sharp County, Arkansas, duly qualified and acting, during the years 1977 and 1978. 2. … The jewelry found in Anderson’s possession clearly meets this definition.

Clement v. Daniels

366 Ark. 352 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 17, 2006

The foregoing evidence clearly reflects that Halter’s early domicile was established in North Little Rock, and his continued conduct — such as his voting in Arkansas, maintaining an Arkansas driver’s license, and paying Arkansas … As we uphold the trial court’s finding that Halter never abandoned his domicile in Arkansas, we must necessarily conclude that Halter clearly met the seven-year requirement in Ark.

Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Meyer

106 Ark. 91 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 9, 1912

If we should give to those qualifying words of the policy the meaning that is now claimed by defendant they were intended to have, there would be scarcely any limit to their nullifying influence. … The certificate was not introduced in evidence by plaintiff for the purpose of establishing the truth of its contents.

Baptist Health Med. Sys. v. Rutledge

488 S.W.3d 507 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 17, 2016

There is clearly a present and ongoing injury to the Hospitals in that the Arkansas Peer Review Fairness Act (the “Act”) creates new standards with which the Hospitals must comply during the peer-review process. … Kinney, Hospital Peer Review of Physicians: Does Statutory Immunity Increase Risk of Unwarranted Professional Injury?, 13 Mich. St. U. J. Med. & L. 57, 79 (2009).

Grogg v. Colley Home Center, Inc.

283 Ark. 120 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1984

It is not disputed that Colley was never properly qualified through the Secretary of State’s office to do business in Oklahoma, however, Colley did have a mobile home dealer’s license from the State of Oklahoma for its Roland … We found no particular act would establish one state’s contacts as being more significant than the other.

Potts v. Hay

229 Ark. 830 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 22, 1958

the Policemen’s Union was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), some of whose aims and objectives are: (1) to refuse to cross or interfere with a picket line established … No rule of construction should ever be used to defeat the clearly expressed language of the document. The Railway Labor Act (U.S.C.A.

First National Bank v. Arkansas State Bank Commissioner

301 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 18, 1989

The pertinent legislation regarding the procedure of establishing a full service branch office is contained in Ark. … In this case, the commissioner clearly gave FNB notice of BNA’s branch bank application, which FNB protested.

Orantes v. Orantes

381 S.W.3d 758 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 14, 2011

When at least there’s at hand a legally qualified custodial parent, or a person that could be a custodial parent. … This court reviews child-custody cases de novo, but will only reverse if the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Stehle v.

McWhorter v. McWhorter

351 Ark. 622 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 6, 2003

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case, and its findings were not clearly erroneous; we, therefore, affirm. … (s) (if any) present with you at the gaming establishment; and 4) the amount you won or lost. . .

Graham v. Sisco

248 Ark. 6 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 1970

It will be time to explore the issue now being argued by the appellee when it is clearly defined by the pleadings or by the proof. … It may be that an experienced surgical nurse, though not qualified as a medically knowledgeable expert, might establish a prima facie case for the plaintiffs on the basis of having observed a hundred similar operations.