Case law

Arkansas Savings & Loan Ass'n Board v. Central Arkansas Savings & Loan Ass'n

260 Ark. 58 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 28, 1976

S&L Bd. v. Central Ark. S&L, 256 Ark. 846 , 510 S.W. 2d 872 (1974) and in Security S&L v. Central Ark. S&L, 257 Ark. 1014 , 521 S.W. 2d 220 (1975). … Justice Frankfurter, in Universal Camera Corp. v. National L. R. Bd., 340 U.S. 474 , 71 S. Ct. 456 , 95 L.

Lamberson v. Board of Commissioners of Drainage District No. 16

150 Ark. 624 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 28, 1921

Mudd v. St. Francis Drain. Dist., 117 Ark. 30 ; St. L. I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Maple Slough Drain. Dist., 138 Ark. 131 ; Dickerson v. Tri-County Drain. Dist., 138 Ark. 471 ; Washington Fire Ins. Co. v.

Walnut Grove School District No. 6 v. County Board of Education

204 Ark. 354 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 25, 1942

This act was considered and construed in the case of Stobaugh v. County Board of Education, 182 Ark. 675 , 32 S. W. 2d 306 , and headnotes to that case reflect that it was construed as follows: “1. … Counsel quotes from the case of Standley v. County Board of Education, 170 Ark. 1 , 277 S. W. 559 , as follows: “In the case of Mays v. Phillips County, 168 Ark. 829 , 274 S. W. 5 , 279 S.

Board of Improvement of Sewer Improvement District No. 1 v. Pollard

98 Ark. 543 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 27, 1911

Lenon v. Brodie, supra; St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Red River Levee Dist., supra; Board of Imp. v. Offenhauser, 84 Ark. 257 . … Board of Imp. v. Offenhauser, supra.

James v. Board of Commissioners Greene & Craighead Counties Drainage District

173 Ark. 517 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 11, 1927

Gould v. Sanford, 155 Ark. 304 , 244 S. W. 433 ; and So. Crawford Imp. Dist. v. Brown, 156 Ark. 267 , 245 S. W. 821 . It is next insisted that it was error to allow interest on the claims. … Under § 11, where delinquencies are reported to the board of commissioners in payment of assessments, it is made its duty to add to the amount of the tax a penalty of 25 per cent, and to proceed to collect the same in the

Patterson v. City of Little Rock

202 Ark. 189 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 1941

Browne v. Bentonville, 94 Ark. 80 , 126 S. W. 93 ; Little Rock v. Holland, 184 Ark. 381 , 42 S. W. 2d 383 ; Hope v. Dodson, 166 Ark. 236 , 266 S. W. 68 ; North Little Rock Water Co. v. … Holland, supra, and the case of Browne v. Bentonville, supra, is to the same effect.” See, also, Bourland v. City of Ft. Smith, 190 Ark. 289 , 78 S. W. 2d 383 ; Ark. Utilities Co. v.

Fayetteville School District No. 1 v. Arkansas State Board of Education

313 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 3, 1993

The Board cites Thomas v. … Comm’n v.

Magnolia School District No. 14 v. Arkansas State Board of Education

303 Ark. 666 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 19, 1990

Shinn v. Heath, 259 Ark. 577 , 535 S.W.2d 57 (1976). In this instance, the Board has expended funds in accordance with the expressed intent of the legislature. … The trial court disagreed, relying on the Board of Educ. of Lonoke County v. Lonoke County, 181 Ark. 1046 , 29 S.W.2d 268 (1930).

Howard Togo Wood v. Arkansas Parole Board, John Felts, and Andy Shock

639 S.W.3d 340 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 17, 2022

Pittman v. … in parole because the board’s determinations regarding parole are discretionary); Hamilton v.

Clay County v. Bank of Knobel

105 Ark. 450 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 9, 1912

We held, in Clay County v. … In State v.

Post v. Franklin County Board of Election Commissioners

375 Ark. 345 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 2009

Zolliecoffer v. Post, 371 Ark. 263 , 265 S.W.3d 114 (2007). While the first appeal was pending, however, and within the time allowed by statute, the Board certified the votes cast for Post. … See, e.g., Willis v.

Roach v. Board of Directors of St. Francis Levee District

168 Ark. 364 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 23, 1925

v. - • “Settlement of Foundation. … The cases of Doniphan, Kensett & Searcy Railroad Company v. Mo. & N. Ark. Rd. Company, 104 Ark. 475 , and Boston Store v.

Young v. Gastro-Intestinal Center, Inc.

361 Ark. 209 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 24, 2005

This court granted the Center’s and Nurse Brown’s petition for review, and we consider this appeal as though it had been originally filed in this court. Dixon v. … Smith v. Hanson, 323 Ark. 188 , 914 S.W.2d 285 (1996). The Center and Nurse Brown owed no legal duty to Mr.

Ozan Lumber Company v. Bishop

203 Ark. 625 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 26, 1942

I saw the board turn loose and [shouted a warning] . The board came on down and hit him. He had no time to move.” Bussell -further testified that he was working “on the second partition away from Bishop! … Donnie Brown testified: “Mr.

County Board of Education v. Norfork School District No. 61

216 Ark. 934 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 27, 1950

This the Board had full power to do. Stroud v. Fryar, ante, p. 250, 225 S. W. 2d 23 . … Act 183 qf 1925 1 allows thirty days in which a party aggrieved may take an appeal from orders or actions of a County Board of Education. We have held that Act 183 is in full force and effect. Gibson v.

Hays v. Batesville Mfg. Co.

251 Ark. 659 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 20, 1971

Lyle Brown, Justice. This is an unemployment compensation case. The appellants are Arthur H. Hays, Commissioner of Labor, and the claimant, Mrs. Mary Arnold. … Reddick v. Scott, 217 Ark. 38 , 228 S. W. 2d 1008 (1950). We are not unmindful of our holding in Stover v. Deere, 249 Ark. 334 , 461 S. W. 2d 393 (1970).

Arkansas State Board of Education v. Magnolia School District No. 14

298 Ark. 603 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 8, 1989

P. 2(a)(9); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Nesheim, 285 Ark. 253 , 686 S.W.2d 777 (1985). … The only case cited in support of the argument that the chancellor lacked jurisdiction to certify the class because of a failure of standing is O’Shea v.

Arlington Hotel Co. v. Buchanan

110 Ark. 34 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 1913

Courts of equity under those circumstances have no jurisdiction to review the action of the assessing board. In the recent case of Clay County v. … proceedings. ’ ’ In Wells Fargo & Co. v.

School Districts Nos. 14, 15, 44 v. County Board of Education

177 Ark. 734 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1928

•Said statute under which the proceeding was instituted was recently interpreted by this court, in the case of Manley v. … to be affected ¡sign and present a petition to the board for that purpose.

Laflin v. Board of Commissioners Street Imp. Dist. No. 8

205 Ark. 24 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 21, 1942

. • In the case of Boles v. … Board of Imp. Dist. v. Offenhauser, 84 Ark. 257 , 105 S. W. 265 ; Boles v. Kelly, 90 Ark. 29 , 117 S. W. 1073 ; Webster v. Ferguson, 95 Ark. 575 , 130 S. W. 513 ; Board of Imp. v. Pollard, 98 Ark. 543 , 136 S. W. 957 .”