Case law

State v. Zawodniak

329 Ark. 179 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 1997

The State called three police officers and a drug chemist who established that when Zawodniak was arrested, he possessed methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and a 3.80 Loracin automatic pistol, containing four bullets — … 64-401 (Uniform Controlled Substances Act) or unlawfully attempt, solicit, or conspire to commit a felony violation of § 5-64-401 while in possession of: (1) A firearm; * *• * The State submits that its evidence at trial clearly

Wiseman v. Arkansas Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n

192 Ark. 313 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 24, 1936

“Plaintiff further states that said defendant is the duly qualified and acting Commissioner of Revenues of the State of Arkansas, and, as such Commissioner, did, in October, 1935, issue and promulgate a ruling that all wholesale … clearly his right to exemption, bringing himself clearly within the terms of such conditions' as the statute may impose.”

Barnes v. State

258 Ark. 565 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 6, 1975

The trial judge examined Barnes on the basic rules of evidence and trial procedure and appropriately found that he knew nothing about them and was not qualified to represent himself. … It is only necessary that a defendant be aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so the record will establish that the defendant knows what he is doing and his choice is made “with eyes open”.

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.

Carton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

303 Ark. 568 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 12, 1990

Clearly, A.R.E. Rule 607 allows one to impeach her own witness. … “Thus a patient’s statement that he was struck by an automobile would qualify but not his statement that the car was driven through a red light.” Id.

Reap v. State

143 Ark. 81 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 22, 1920

The court held that the juror was qualified. The appellant accepted to the ruling of the court and made this ruling' one of the grounds of his motion for a new trial. … According to the rule established by this court in the above cases the trial court did not err in holding that C. W. Baldwin was qualified to serve as a juror. In the case of Collins v.

Orsini v. State

340 Ark. 665 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 23, 2000

Clearly, however, this section of the FOIA sets a policy in favor of expeditious hearings on all FOIA requests. In the case of Furman v. … The remaining question then is whether Regulation 804 establishes an exemption for the documents requested.

Coker v. Coker

423 S.W.3d 599 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 11, 2012

However, this court long ago set out what evidence is necessary to establish such indignities as a ground for divorce: It is for the court to determine whether or not the alleged offending spouse has been guilty of acts or … But, the majority has now cited with authority an opinion that conflated two separate statutory grounds for divorce into one and now allows adultery to qualify as grounds for indignities.

Sebastian County Equalization Board v. Western Arkansas Counseling & Guidance Center, Inc.

296 Ark. 207 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 11, 1988

The Center’s acceptance and treatment of those who are unable to pay is further established by the Center’s subsidizing of a majority of its clients, as noted below. … We cannot say the trial court’s finding that the Center’s property is exempt was clearly erroneous and the judgment is affirmed.

Steward v. Statler

371 Ark. 351 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 1, 2007

. § 28-40-102 (b) (Repl. 2004), a probate proceeding could not be “commenced” until (l) a petition for appointment had been filed, (2) the court determined that the individual was qualified to act on behalf of the estate, … Any interpretation of an act must be aimed at determining whether retroactive effect is stated or implied so clearly and unequivocally as to eliminate any doubt. Id.

Sykes v. Williams

373 Ark. 236 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 17, 2008

Strict construction is narrow construction and requires that nothing be taken as intended that is not clearly expressed. Hapney v. Rheem Mfg. Co., supra. … A finding that Baxter qualified as a prime contractor for purposes of Arkansas Code Annotated section ll-9-402(a) would afford Sykes no relief at this stage, as he has elected to sue in tort.

Bhc Pinnacle Pointe Hospital, LLC v. Debra Nelson and Henry Anderson, Jr., Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

594 S.W.3d 62 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 20, 2020

The AMWA’s rule on administrative remedies is inapplicable to the ARC Agreements because administrative agencies—not private parties—establish administrative remedies. … Andrews, 2018 Ark. 12, 535 S.W.3d 616, that “sovereign immunity” shielded the State from any monetary liability.

Cunningham v. State

429 S.W.3d 201 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 5, 2013

Jurors are presumed unbiased and qualified to serve. Burton v. State, 2011 Ark. 351 , 2011 WL 4092783 . … Moreover, appellant fails to establish that he was even prejudiced when the transcript was not admitted because he fails to demonstrate how the alleged disparity in police interview techniques had any relevance to the charges

Ann Jenkins v. Mercy Hospital Rogers

633 S.W.3d 758 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 12, 2021

. §§ 16-123-101 to -108 (Repl. 2016 & Supp. 2021), survives either because Mercy does not qualify for the religious- organization exemption or because the exemption is unconstitutional. … Nor has Jenkins alleged facts to establish that she justifiably relied on the statements made by Mercy.

Cockrill v. Armstrong

31 Ark. 580 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1876

The will is short and concise, the general purpose clearly expressed. … We must, therefore, hold that the grounds assumed by counsel for Cockrill, unless in this qualified #sense, is not well taken.

Sutton v. McClain

193 Ark. 49 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 26, 1936

This is announced as the established doctrine in High on Receivers, (4th ed.) 121(a). … The decree of the trial court was clearly erroneous and made over the objection of appellant duly preserved in the record.

Dick v. State

364 Ark. 133 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 17, 2005

Similarly, section 12-12-503(2)(B)(ii) states, "No unreasonable action shall be construed to permit a finding of abuse without having established the elements of abuse." … Nothing is taken as intended which is not clearly expressed. Heikkila v. State, supra ; Smith v. State, supra .

Booth v. Mason

241 Ark. 144 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 1966

Booth is not a qualified surveyor, and his answers to the questions relating to the measurements revealed that he worked from an erroneous premise. … As to Count Five, we think appellees, Trustees of the Chastain Church of Christ, clearly established their right to the property in question by adverse possession, and it is accordingly unnecessary to discuss other defenses

In Re the Adoption of S.J.B.

294 Ark. 598 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 29, 1988

While the Supreme Court held that the New York statutes adequately protected Lehr’s inchoate interest in establishing a relationship with his child, the Court clearly did so because the New York law provided a means by which … Clearly, under these provisions, a putative father in Lehr’s situation could not qualify for notice of any adoption proceeding involving his child.

City of Springdale v. Town of Bethel Heights

311 Ark. 497 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 19, 1993

The Commission later discovered that only one or two (or less than ten) voters in precinct Washington A were qualified to vote on the tract four annexation question, so it invalidated the votes from that precinct, leaving … We note that § 14-40-304 sets out the procedure to challenge the municipality’s failure to comply with the annexation requirements and § 7-5-801 establishes the procedure to contest the election returns, e.g., whether the