Case law

Roberts v. Priest

341 Ark. 813 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 7, 2000

The standards which this court employs in making this determination are well established: On the one hand, it is not required that the ballot title contain a synopsis of the amendment or statute. Sturdy v. … However, it is clearly misleading as to the scope and import of Section Two of the proposed amendment.

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.

Lion Oil Co. v. Marsh

220 Ark. 678 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 2, 1952

No agreement was reached and on April 30th, 1952, the employees began a strike at the plant and established picket lines at all entrances. … the federal constitution or statutes, because they could, under the terms of the agreement they are attempting to alter, have given appellant 60 days notice and thereby placed themselves in position to picket with full immunity

Williams v. Arthur J. Arney Co.

240 Ark. 157 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 31, 1966

That the Union will furnish at the request of the contractor duly qualified workmen in the various classifications covered by this Agreement, in sufficient numbers as may be necessary to properly perform work contracted for … Appellees argue that to demand signing of an agreement containing this provision is a violation of Amendment 34 and clearly within the prohibition contained in Kaiser v. Price-Fewell, Inc., 235 Ark. 296 , 359 S.

Janes v. Williams

31 Ark. 175 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1876

This section is qualified by sec. 4478, so as to dispense with the rule, in case there are many parties who have a common interest, or where they are so numerous as to make it difficult to bring them before the court within … to establish its validity elsewhere.

Webb v. Bowden

124 Ark. 244 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 14, 1916

Where, however, a city or precinct without adequate cause shows a grossly excessive vote, which is unexplained, it may be cause for reducing the vote to the ordinary, average limit, or, if it cannot he separated, and it is clearly … It abides throughout the trial with the contestants, upon whom rests the duty of establishing the affirmative of the issue which they present.

Doran v. State

141 Ark. 442 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 12, 1920

No fact having been stated, none could be disproved, and, as the jury might regard these statements as substantial proof of the fact sought to be established, great harm might result, as they are clearly inadmissible for … He did not even qualify his language by saying that “men charged and proved to be guilty should be convicted,” but he called upon them to enforce the statute against men who “were charged with seduction.”

Pullen v. Estate of Pullen

249 Ark. 489 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 23, 1970

What we are pointing out is simply that it is not even clear what she intended to do, even if the instrument could qualify as a codicil. … There are two other circumstances, the first of which is rather potent, that clearly indicate the writing to be only a memo. J. E.

Hollamon v. State

312 Ark. 48 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 8, 1993

Accordingly, the defendant must first establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, which the appellant clearly did in this case when he pointed to a peremptory strike by the state dismissing the sole black person … Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the circuit court clearly erred in its finding.

Baggett v. State

254 Ark. 553 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 28, 1973

In the instant case, we think an abandonment of premises, and the items found, could not be more clearly shown than by the circumstances herein mentioned, and we hold appellant’s contention to be without merit. … Ann. § 43-2204 (Repl. 1964) provides as follows: “A juror cannot be examined to establish a ground for a new trial; except it be to establish, as a ground for a new trial that the verdict was made by lot.”

Lillard v. State

236 Ark. 74 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 11, 1963

The homicide by appellant was established. … We have detailed a sufficient amount of the testimony to establish that appellant’s assignments are without merit.

In re Adoption of Baby Boy B.

394 S.W.3d 837 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 1, 2012

Clearly, S.M.B. thwarted appellant’s efforts to comply with section 9-9-206(a)(2). … While appellant clearly requested the circuit court to rule on this issue, the court declined.

Graham v. State

365 Ark. 274 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 16, 2006

There are limitless scenarios that might qualify as ‘taking action,’ and the State failed to disprove them.” In essence, Edith argues that, by failing to prove a negative, the State failed to meet its burden of proof. … Thus, the defendant’s awareness of the duty is an element that must be established in order to find a criminal breach of that duty.

Kersh Lake Drainage District v. Johnson

203 Ark. 315 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 8, 1941

The doctrine of res judicata clearly applies on these appeals. … I am clearly of the view that neither fraud nor what could amount to constructive fraud appears in the record before us.

Morton v. Park View Apartments

315 Ark. 400 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 20, 1993

The trial court was clearly wrong in this finding. … The 1978 agreement was intended as a device to facilitate the establishment of a limited partnership for the purpose of taking favorable federal income tax deductions. Mr.

David Edward McLaughlin v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. 216 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 18, 2021

McLaughlin fails to establish that he is entitled to any relief. … Section 16-112-202 requires that in order to file a motion for testing that may qualify for relief under the Act, a petitioner who requests relief and who seeks scientific testing to provide the basis for that relief must

Cothren v. State

344 Ark. 697 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 10, 2001

A petitioner may also qualify for Rule 37 relief, regardless of trial counsel’s performance, if he demonstrates error so fundamental as to render the judgment of conviction void and subject to collateral attack. … An offense is so included if: (1) It is established by proof of the same or less than all the elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged; Mr.

Fordyce v. Woman's Christian National Library Ass'n

79 Ark. 550 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1906

A base or qualified fee during its continuance has all the incidents of a fee simple. … The immunity of the property of a charity from sale under execution rests on special grounds.

Addison v. State

298 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 20, 1989

Clearly, the officers breached the positive duty mandated by Rule 2.3. See Burks, supra. … In this instance, the evidence established probable cause to support Addison’s detention at the station. Since there was probable cause to detain Addison, it is not necessary for us to address the issue of consent.

Medical Park Hosp. v. BANCORPSOUTH BANK OF HOPE

357 Ark. 316 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 6, 2004

King, which presents a well-established exception to the spendthrift trust. There are two problems with this argument. … He evidenced his intention most clearly by creating a stated income.