Case law

Baldwin, Trustees Mo. Pac. R.R. v. Hunnicutt

192 Ark. 441 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 16, 1936

It is very earnestly insisted that the evidence is insufficient to establish negligence, or to take the question of negligence to the jury. … The court examined them on their voir dire, and all appeared qualified. Counsel for appellee was then asked if he desired to ask any further questions, and answered in the negative.

Sharp v. State

51 Ark. 147 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1888

Hackett, 2 Allen, 141 , said: ‘‘The well established rule of the common law would seem to be, that if the wound was a dangerous wound, that is, calculated to endanger or destroy life, and death ensued therefrom, it is sufficient … A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime, and take away from human life a salutary and essential safeguard.

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.

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.

Ark. Commerce Comm. v. Ark. & Ozarks Rwy. Co.

235 Ark. 89 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 21, 1962

Numerous and familiar decisions of this court establish that they have a wide range of discretion in that regard. … arbitrary classification and in conflict with Section 18 Article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas which provides that: ‘ The general Assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities

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).

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.

Crosby v. State

93 Ark. 156 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 10, 1910

He may even have no established views of general theology. … Whether a witness is so qualified is left in the first instance to the discretionary judgment of the trial court, after informing itself by proper examination.”

Schenebeck v. Schenebeck

329 Ark. 198 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 1997

In connection with the federal estate tax return and in order to qualify Dorothy’s life interest in the testamentary trust as a Qualified Terminable Interest Trust, Gerald disclaimed all interest in the property and income … trust was created but not funded, and the probate court was simply collecting the assets of the estate and distributing them to the proper entity when it ordered the prorated rental payment to be paid into a special account established

Moore v. Anders

14 Ark. 628 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1854

But for the reason that he is not affected by the independent judgment against Blackmore, he can claim no immunity from it. … That the vendor, who gives a bond for title, may bring ejectment on failure of the vendee to comply with the condition of the bond by the payment of the purchase money, is fully established by Brown vs.

Edward Lee Carter v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction

2025 Ark. 168 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 30, 2025

The circuit court’s factual findings in support of its exercise of discretion will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Id., 598 S.W.3d at 36. … The burden is on the petitioner to establish with factual support that he is entitled to issuance of the writ. Id., 618 S.W.3d at 131.

City of Fort Smith v. Wade

578 S.W.3d 276 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 20, 2019

Fort Smith has established a Civil Service Commission (CSC). … However, today's majority opinion ultimately fails to advance the clearly stated purpose of the FOIA.

Hickman v. Trust of Heath, House & Boyles

310 Ark. 333 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 20, 1992

However, not all writings qualify and the case before us presents such a situation. … Clearly, the signed writing in this case, the minutes, does not expressly incorporate the unsigned paper by direct statement.

Middleton v. Lockhart

344 Ark. 572 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2001

Pursuant to Art. 9, § 3, of the Arkansas Constitution, as a married man, Kenneth qualified to acquire a homestead in that property. Adams v. Planter’s Prod. Credit Assoc., 262 Ark. 734 , 561 S.W.2d 80 (1978). … As the trial court found, if the evidence shows abandonment, the issue of whether the right was established is resolved as well.

Garrett v. Faubus

323 S.W.2d 877 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 27, 1959

Our Act No. 4 is clearly for the purpose of preventing violence and bloodshed. … Public officers and employees— No immunity for violation of laws enacted under amendment—Forfeiture of office for violations.

Swan v. Ozark Road Improvement District

169 Ark. 987 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 30, 1925

The commissioners, after qualifying in the manner required by the act of 1925, caused plans to be prepared for hard surfacing the laterals, and advertised an offering of additional bonds of the district for sale in the sum … , we think', that it wtas always the intention of the commissioners of the district to put gravel on the laterals, and that the betterments were assessed on the assumption that this would be done; but the testimony also establishes

New Prospect Drilling Co. v. First Commercial Trust, N.A.

332 Ark. 466 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 9, 1998

Objections to that testimony were sustained on the basis that Deputy Sorey had not been qualified as an expert. … Prior to that time, however, Deputy Sorey had established that he had processed the scene; taken measurements; determined the vehicles’ positions in the road; detected the skid marks; and searched for gouge marks, finding

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tucker

353 Ark. 730 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 2003

When a defendant makes an argument that the verdict is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence because the evidence is insufficient to establish one element of a prima facie case to support the cause of action, … In fact, if the expert' testimony established anything, it established that the mis-fill was not the proximate cause of his death.

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF GARLAND CTY. v. Johnson

358 Ark. 443 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 23, 2004

This election case arises out ice. attempts by appellant Linda Boyd to qualify as a candidate for Garland County Clerk in the Republican preferential primary held earlier this year. … This court will not reverse a trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. See Carter v. Four Seasons Funding Corp., 351 Ark. 637 , 97 S.W.3d 387 (2003); Con-Agra, Inc. v.

Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Jones

75 Ark. 76 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 15, 1905

To determine whether a change of venue should be granted merely upon statements from the jurors that they have no prejudice against the defendant is equivalent to holding that if a qualified jury can be selected from the … In other words, the negligence of the company is established under proper instructions on this issue.