Case law

Jerry Lard v. State of Arkansas

595 S.W.3d 355 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 12, 2020

After Lard requested waiver of his postconviction remedies, the circuit court ordered him to undergo competency testing by a disinterested psychiatrist or qualified psychologist. Dr. … Further, he established that his trial counsel had not 10 made the pretrial filing required by section 5-4-618.

Transport Co. v. Champion Transport, Inc.

298 Ark. 178 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 6, 1989

. § 23-13-224 (1987), states that: [A] permit for a contract carrier by motor vehicle shall be issued to any qualified applicant if it is found that the applicant is fit, willing, and able to properly perform the service … Moreover, the need appears to have been clearly established, among other things, by the testimony of the shipper that it would have to discontinue shipping by motor carrier if the application were not approved.

Colquitt v. Stevens

111 Ark. 314 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 1914

The complaint alleged various irregularities in the establishment of the improvement district, and, among others, that the petition for its establishment was not signed by a majority in value of the property owners within … The evidence clearly shows that this conveyance was made to the children for the purpose of preventing the creditors of Collier, Colquitt & Co. from seizing the .property for their debts.”

Chunestudy v. State

408 S.W.3d 55 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 24, 2012

The relationship between the victim and her father was clearly an intimate one. See White v. State, 367 Ark. 595 , 242 S.W.3d 240 (2006). … We now turn to Chunestudy’s argument that Vanaman’s testimony was not relevant |ubecause it failed to help establish the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and we disagree.

Gallas v. Alexander

371 Ark. 106 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 27, 2007

Our review of the Act reveals that the General Assembly clearly and specifically set forth its findings and purpose for the Act. … Appellants rightly point out the extreme difficulty under existing law to qualify for and hold one of these franchises.

ADAM G. WEEKS v. JOHN THURSTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ARKANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE; jUDY MILLER; CARA BRYANT, KEITH DECLERK, AND CAROLYN TOWELL, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS COMISSIONERS OF THE RANDOLPH COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; MICHAEL BRADLEY, JUDY VERKLER, AND TOMMY HOLLAND, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAWRENCE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; LOU ANN CUSHMAN, HOLLY MCLARAN, AND HOMER WILES, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS COMMISSIONERS OF THE SHARP COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; And DAVID DICKSON, ALICE JAMES, AND DONNA GOULD, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS COMMISSIONERS OF THE JACKSON COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION

2020 Ark. 64 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 13, 2020

The Fronterhouse court rejected the State’s position that the proponent of a conviction must demonstrate the underlying facts giving rise to the conviction in order to establish that it involves dishonesty or false statement … Such misconduct on Judge Thompson’s part clearly violated Canons 1 and 2 A. Id. at 272, 16 S.W.3d at 221–22.

State of Arkansas v. Minor Child

2026 Ark. 66 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 16, 2026

It establishes standards for determining whether an offender should be tried as a juvenile, and such decisions—and the mechanisms for making those determinations—are for the General Assembly to decide. See id. … We generally apply those terms to the medical examiner’s testimony, who, after being qualified as an expert, can testify how and why the victim died.2 This is obviously why the circuit court found no evidence about the

Burdine v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration

379 S.W.3d 476 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 18, 2010

Must retest to qualify for new CDL. On April 21, 2009, Burdine filed a petition for de novo review in the circuit court. … The circuit court so found, and we cannot say that it clearly erred in doing so.

Partin v. Bar of Arkansas

320 Ark. 37 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 20, 1995

The Board of Law Examiners has, however, refused to recommend his admission on the ground that he is not morally qualified. Mr. … A majority of the Board finds and concludes that the record, beyond a preponderance of the evidence, establishes otherwise.

MacKintrush v. State

334 Ark. 390 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 1, 1998

We are not convinced that this finding of fact was clearly erroneous so as to warrant reversal. III. … From the facts before us, it does not appear that MacKintrush ever established a legal right which the court would be required to enforce.

Phillips v. State

266 Ark. 883 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 12, 1979

Clinger: I’m going to object on the basis that the father isn’t qualified to give an opinion, make a mental diagnosis, psychiatric diagnosis. Mr. Phillips: I believe I am better qualified — The Court: Just a minute. … Obviously, the objection was to opinion testimony by a non-expert witness and for the reason stated, such opinions are clearly admissible on adequate foundation.

Dickson v. Renfro

263 Ark. 718 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 11, 1978

In both the Slinkard and Lewis cases, supra, relied upon by the majority, a party to the relationship promptly protested to violation of it, and clearly established a fiduciary, sensitive, trust relationship. … Having so established the relationship, then the violation thereof was clearly a redemption. The Lewis case, supra, was decided upon the theory of a constructive trust, as well as upon the after-acquired title statute.

Eugene Issac Pitts v. State of Arkansas

591 S.W.3d 786 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 2020

A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. … He was qualified as an expert. It is well established that a jury places heightened weight on scientific evidence from an expert witness.

Corey McCullon v. State of Arkansas

679 S.W.3d 358 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 14, 2023

The record before us establishes the following facts. … State, 2010 Ark. 452, 370 S.W.3d 820] or Williams, and we have clearly rejected those arguments.

Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Murphy

209 Ark. 945 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 25, 1946

The burden now shifts to the defendant to establish by a preponderance of the testimony that the plaintiff has recovered from total disability subsequent to the former adjudication. … The court had already given the following instruction No. 1: “The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to make out his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ’ ’ Instruction No. 4 complained of was clearly warranted, we

Floyd v. Gilbreath

27 Ark. 675 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1872

Having, we think, clearly established the fact that a remedy exists at law, for the grievances complained of, in the appellee’s bill, we do not wish to be understood as holding that it is exclusive of the jurisdiction of … It is argued that in these times of telegraphs, railroads and steam, that to insure immunity from wrongs and hardships under the law, the use of the extraordinary writ of injunction should be freely used.

Rye v. Baumann

231 Ark. 278 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 23, 1959

In a situation such as this, an honest claimant upon being asked about his intent, unless previously warned, might not think to qualify his answer so as to claim what he considered his own, but would state that he claimed … “A reservation is always of something- taken back out of that which is clearly granted; while an exception is of some part of the estate not granted at all.” 4 Kent’s Commentaries, 468 Bodcaw Lbr. Co. v.

Dyer v. Jacoway

42 Ark. 186 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1883

In this special connection, it has become the established doctrine that courts of equity should not interfere for the mera correction of errors which might be corrected on appeal, nor on account of irregularities in settlements … But there are charges of a much graver nature, which, if proven on hearing, would clearly indicate a fraudulent intent in the settlement, and which should be answered and denied, or explained.

Newton, Cir. Clk. v. American Security Company

201 Ark. 943 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 17, 1941

adjoins said property on the west; that each of said roads is forty feet in width and that twenty feet or one-half of each is located on petitioner’s property; that said Base Line road, with said width of forty feet, was established … Of course one’s property cannot be taken for public use without compensation, but the evidence in this case clearly shows that no one is attempting to take the property of appellee.

Burcham v. City of Van Buren

330 Ark. 451 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 1997

However, for ranks in each department where there may not be openings during an annual period, the board may establish rules to create the eligibles fist on an as-needed basis. … This is clearly not what the General Assembly intended. II. Advertisement for Promotions Burcham next contends that the Commission violated Ark.