Case law

Arkansas Railroad Commission v. Castetter

180 Ark. 770 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 23, 1929

By § 3 of the article the declaration is made that no citizen shall be deprived of any right, privilege or immunity. … By § 18 the General Assembly is prohibited from making- any grant to any -citizen or class of citizens of privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong ,to- all citizens.

Rector v. Board of Improvement

50 Ark. 116 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1887

The members of the board so appointed qualified and entered upon the discharge of their duties and procured estimates of the probable cost of constructing the sewer, which was $9,600. … regulate the manner of assessing real property for local improvements in cities of the first class,” approved March 22d, 1881, after providing how an improvement district shall be formed, and that the order or ordinance establishing

Imboden v. Hunter

23 Ark. 622 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1861

The court said: “That a trustee cannot be the purchaser of a trust estate, without leave of the court, is an established rule in equity. A mortgagee is a trustee, but in a qualified sense. … Whether the mortgagee is a trustee in a technical sense, or is so in a qualified sense only, can make no difference.

Little Red River Levee District No. 2 v. Garrett

154 Ark. 76 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 29, 1922

The facts alleged by appellant with respect to the fraudulent use of the fourth-issue bonds by Erganbright and Long are established by the overwhelming weight of the evidence. … That, in other words, was a case where the exception to the rule against imputing knowledge of the agent to his principal was clearly applicable.

Hartford Fire Insurance v. State

76 Ark. 303 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1905

These terms should qualify the clauses to which they are annexed grammatically and in fact, if possible. … These principles are well established. 2 Lewis’ Sutherland on Stat. Con. § § 462, 470, 471; 1 Elliott, Evidence, § § 53, 59, 65, 67; U. S. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. 91 U. S. 72 ; U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn. 166 U.

Scott v. Houpt

73 Ark. 78 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 19, 1904

This' latter clause serves another useful purpose in enabling creditors to ascertain the holding of their debtors, and establishing a basis of credit for the stockholder. … It is clearly inapplicable. The duties and functions of the clerks are defined by statute, and one clerk has no more authority in the other office than the sheriff or assessor. Such filing is wholly ineffectual.

Scott v. Priest

326 Ark. 328 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 21, 1996

Another point concerning the local-option elections is that the proposed amendment changes existing law by requiring that 20% of the qualified voters in a county approve casino gambling. … McCuen to attempt to establish a constitutional initiative and referendum procedure that will permit an early resolution of ballot-tide cases.

Crossett Lumber Company v. McCain, Comm. of Labor

205 Ark. 631 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 5, 1943

Logging camps were established and that system of supplying logs to the mill was referred to by Mr. Norman, secretary of appellant, as the Logging Camp System. … These claims were referred to a claims deprdy who made an investigation and denied them because of “no wage record and the lack of qualifying earnings.”

City of Little Rock v. Linn

245 Ark. 260 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 30, 1968

We clearly pointed out in that opinion that before the street could be closed it must first be shown that the portion being closed was not required for public purposes. … We also clearly stated that the action in that case would not be res judicata of any nature litigation between the same parties instigated under § 19-2304.

Teas v. State

266 Ark. 572 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 1, 1979

In my opinion, they were clearly a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan. … This is hardly a basis for saying that the holding of the trial court was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

State Ex Rel. Purcell v. Nelson

246 Ark. 210 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 24, 1969

Since the trial court exercised its discretion in a matter clearly within its jurisdiction, its action is not subject to review at this time. … Before a master is appointed, the main issue establishing the rights of the parties should be determined so that definite directions can be given to the master for his guidance. Hicks v.

Marlin v. Harrison, Receiver

214 Ark. 342 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 20, 1948

On the other hand, an organization endeavoring to qualify, but lacking capital, may be easily persuaded to accept an appraisement in circumstances where, as a legitimate investment of money on hand, the mortgage offered would … Clearly the deposit fund is an asset of the Company, pledged in the first instance to payment of policies, but available secondarily to pay debts.

Kelly v. Martin

433 S.W.3d 896 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 2014

In its oral ruling, the circuit court found that the evidence established that Judge Fox had been delinquent on his annual license fee. … Clearly, when an attorney is suspended, his or her privilege to practice law temporarily ceases. In that regard I agree with the majority.

Kelly v. Martin

Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 2014

In its oral ruling, the circuit court found that the evidence established that Judge Fox had been delinquent on his annual license fee. … Clearly, when an attorney is suspended, his or her privilege to practice law temporarily ceases. In that regard I agree with the majority.

In Re Estate of Keathley

367 Ark. 568 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 2, 2006

We review probate proceedings de novo and we will not reverse the decision of the probate court unless it is clearly erroneous. Burns, 364 Ark. 280 , 219 S.W.3d 134 . … As pointed out above, Shelton has never been declared a legitimate heir and, consequently, he does not qualify as an interested person within the Probate Code.

McKeown v. State

197 Ark. 454 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 1939

In appellant’s brief it is urged that tbe law’s intent was “to keep closed on Sunday all stores and general merehándise establishments, including dram shops and saloons. … If a majority of the qualified voters opposed the sale of beer, such sale was prohibited.

Farmers Equipment Company v. Miller

252 Ark. 1092 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 17, 1972

There it was clearly deminstrated that there was no basis for the opinion of a witness of the estimated cost of certain excavation work. … That testimony was clearly hearsay and inadmissible as evidence of the agency.

Vaughan v. Bowie

30 Ark. 278 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1875

Harbison, 29 Ark., 340, it was held that for a tax clearly illegal on its face, the remedy was at law., and this court declined to review the case of Floyd v. … If the rule established in Floyd v.

Davis v. Dillmeier Enterprises, Inc.

330 Ark. 545 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 13, 1997

It was stated unequivocally that the exclusive-remedy doctrine of the Workers’ Compensation Act “in no way conflicts with or bars a properly established or alleged claim under the Civil Rights Act.” … Clearly, the combination of compensation benefits and additional benefits are designed to pay the employee a total amount equal to his or her average salary, thus making the employee whole.

Collins v. Hinton

327 Ark. 159 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 3, 1997

In fact, the holding in Carton clearly supports the trial court’s decision in this case to admit the testimony of Dr. Lopez. … Lopez in the present case would likewise qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule found in Rule 803(4).