Case law

Crittenden v. Lytle

221 Ark. 302 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 8, 1952

Appellants base tbeir persuasive argument on the •well-established rule for the construction of wills as set forth in numerous texts and decisions, citing 57 Am. Jur., p. 726 , and Hoyle v. Baddour, 193 Ark. 233 , 98 S. … There are instances where words used in a will should not be construed according to their technical meaning, but only where explanatory words are used to qualify them or give them a different meaning.

Greene County v. Clay County

135 Ark. 301 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 8, 1918

same to Clay County as a part thereof, the area being properly described by metes and bounds in the statute, which provided also that the township officers should continue in office until their successors were elected and qualified … NTTT of the constitution of 1874 providing that “no county now established shall be reduced to an area of less than six hundred square miles nor to less than five thousand inhabitants ; nor shall any new county be established

Taylor v. Governor

1 Ark. 21 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1837

The language of the constitution is as follows: “ The qualified voters of each county shall elect one Sheriff, one Coroner, one Treasurer, and one County Surveyor, for the term of two “years. … He is then clearly within the meaning of the constitution, and consequently ineligible to any office of profit or trust.

Harvey v. Rose

26 Ark. 3 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1870

The prima fade case — that the defendant accepted the possession and custody of the mule, as a common carrier — established by the fact that he was a public ferryman, and that the mule was put upon his ferry boat for the … Ricks, 14 Ark., 295. • It is evident, also, from what we have above remarked, that a special agreement is not necessary to qualify a ferryman’s acceptance of property delivered to him for transportation over his ferry, so

City of Batesville v. Grace

259 Ark. 493 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 15, 1976

This is contrary to Article 4 of our constitution which prohibits intrusion by the judiciary upon the legislative domain. *** “However, zoning regulations and ordinances are not immune to appellate review. … First, his opinion on June 10 clearly shows that he focused on the question of the arbitrariness of the mayor’s veto, instead of the action by the city —- the refusal to override the veto.

Gurley v. State

164 Ark. 397 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 12, 1924

Trigg answered that he would, and he was held qualified and was accepted as a juror. We think no error was committed in permitting the State to propound these questions. … An audit of the books of the bank was made, and the auditor who had made the audit testified as to the various entries which, established the shortage.

Lee v. State

532 S.W.3d 43 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 30, 2017

Prospective jurors who state that they can lay aside prior impressions or opinions and render a verdict based upon the evidence presented at trial, however, are qualified to serve as jurors. Wainwright v. … General assertions that counsel did not aggressively prepare for trial are not sufficient to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 7.

Faull v. Heath

259 Ark. 145 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 26, 1976

The facts and issues are clearly set out in the appellant’s brief and they appear as follows: The appellant is the indemnitor on a surety bond executed (pursuant to § 8 of Act 132 of 1969) by the Pastime Club of Hot Springs … Upon the Director determining that the applicant is qualified hereunder, a permit may be issued as authorized in this Section.

Gibbs v. State

255 Ark. 997 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 4, 1974

The machines were coin-operated and Hall viewed the films as any patron of the establishment would, i.e., by placing the required coins into the machine. … A short answer is that such a position is clearly contrary to the result in Roaden, where the reversal was based solely upon the admission of the film in evidence.

George v. State

306 Ark. 360 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1991

Wright qualify as “law” under our Rule 802 and, further, whether our original opinion in this case is “law” for Rule 802 purposes. … In 1990 we held that our rules of evidence are supreme in establishing hearsay exceptions. See State v. Sypult, 304 Ark. 5 , 800 S.W.2d 402 (1990).

Carlos McFerrin v. State of Arkansas

638 S.W.3d 4 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 10, 2022

McFerrin fails to establish a ground for coram nobis relief. … McFerrin’s argument is—at best—misplaced, and he fails to establish he would be entitled to coram nobis relief.

Adamson v. Cummins

5 Ark. 541 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1850

But where this power of control ceases to operate effectively, and where the power of the chancellor begins, the authorities do not clearly and distinctly define. … Upon general principles, the affirmative of this proposition would seem to be clearly maintainable; all the analogies of the law are in favor of it.

R.K. Enterprise, LLC v. Pro-Comp Management, Inc.

356 Ark. 565 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 1, 2004

With regard to the trial court’s finding that the items at issue are trade secrets that were misappropriated, we note that our standard of review is whether the judge’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the … The abstract before us does not establish TRS’s lost profits or Nationwide’s gains resulting from the misappropriation of trade secrets.

Watts v. Mahon

223 Ark. 136 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 15, 1954

W. 2d 926 , wherein it was sought to establish such a contract, ‘it is not sufficient that he establish it by a preponderance of the testimony, but that he must go further and establish the contract by evidence so clear, … W. 82 , it was said that the evidence “clearly establishes the fact that plaintiff went to live with his nncle under an agreement that the latter was to convey the property to him in consideration of the care and attention

Blevins v. Wagnon

281 Ark. 272 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 30, 1984

We can only overturn that decision if he was clearly wrong in a resolution of a factual dispute, or wrong as a matter of law. A.R.C.P. Rule 52. We find he was neither and affirm the decree. … George Wagnon which can be exercised after five years of operation of the nursing home for the appraised value of the property and facilities as mutually established by two competent and qualified appraisers, one being selected

Sides v. Beene

327 Ark. 401 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 24, 1997

Thus, the Davis court concluded that the adoption-inheritance laws were not intended to modify the established meaning of terms used in deeds. … There is no doubt that in 1930 when the deed in question was executed the rule of property of this State was to the effect that an adopted person would not qualify as an heir of the body of an adopting parent.

Farris v. Ark. State Game & Fish Comm.

228 Ark. 776 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 24, 1958

conservation and regulation of birds, fish, game ■ and wild life resources of the State, including hatcheries, sanctuaries, refuges, reservations and all property now owned or used for said purposes and the acquisition and establishment … The Amendment clearly divests the Legislature of all of its powers to conserve the wild life resources of this state, except those powers expressly reserved therein, being the power to make appropriations and to increase

Newhouse Mill & Lumber Co. v. Keller

103 Ark. 538 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 15, 1912

Such motions are addressed to the discretion of the trial court; and unless they have clearly abused such discretion in refusing to grant a continuance, this court will not reverse the ruling. Taylor v. … The adverb solely qualifies the verb determined.

Bishop v. Williams

221 Ark. 617 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 23, 1953

By this recital, the appellees say, "the grantor has clearly shown his intention * * * to convey a life estate in the lands." … Illustrative cases included those in which the grantor, after having conveyed to A for life with remainder to his heirs, attempts to qualify his action by stating his intention to create a life estate only in the first taker

Clark v. State

358 Ark. 469 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 23, 2004

Moreover, we will not reverse a circuit court’s factual determination on a motion for .new trial unless it is clearly erroneous, and the issue of witness credibility is for the circuit judge to weigh and assess. Id. … First, we do not believe that Simmons’s statement qualifies as a “third-party confession” because Simmons is not a third party to the crime.