Case law

Wyatt v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

315 Ark. 547 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 24, 1994

Lynn Nowlin Bryant, a licensed practical nurse employed by Warner Brown Hospital, gave information to a relative that the appellant, Ronald Wyatt, a hospital patient either had Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or … Bryant’s statements, whatever they may have been, “occurred outside the course and scope of her employment, and plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case against Warner Brown Hospital on a respondeat superior theory.

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.

AMERICAN FAMILY L. ASSUR. CO. OF COLUMBUS v. Reeves

248 Ark. 1303 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 1970

Nonetheless, appellee appears to have had firsthand knowledge of a growth; and his testimony, therefore, was sufficient to establish the fact that Mrs. Reeves had a growth prior to the application for insurance. … I realize that the majority opinion is hinged partially upon the evidence showing clearly that appellee did know that his wife had previously had a growth.

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.

Nelson v. Timberline International, Inc.

332 Ark. 165 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 5, 1998

In order to clarify the provisions of the Arkansas workers’ compensation law and to provide improved benefits for persons qualifying under the Act, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 290 of 1981, which significantly … We recently explained the legislative intent in the establishment of the Second Injury Trust Fund law as follows: It is clearly expressed in section 11-9-525 that the purpose of the Fund is to fully compensate an employee

City of Fort Smith, a Municipal Corporation v. Wade

2019 Ark. 222 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 20, 2019

Fort Smith has established a Civil Service Commission (CSC). … I agree with the majority that, based on the facts specific to this case, the emails exchanged here clearly do not establish a meeting for the purposes of the FOIA.

Golden v. State

341 Ark. 656 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 13, 2000

Supreme Court describes as “substantial,” but of which they also state that “that interest must be qualified by the recognition that juveniles, unlike adults, are always in some form of custody.” … recognizes that children are defenseless and that there is no greater moral obligation upon the General Assembly than to provide for the protection of our children and that our child welfare system needs to be strengthened by establishing

Graham v. Matheny

346 S.W.3d 273 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 8, 2009

Once a guardianship has been created, section 28-65-401 of the Arkansas Code establishes the process for terminating that guardianship. … Second, when a guardianship has been established for a child, and a termination is sought, the court must first focus on whether, under current facts, the guardianship is still necessary.

Jones v. Flowers

373 Ark. 213 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 17, 2008

We have also affirmed for a different reason when the documentary evidence in the record clearly gave us a basis for doing so ( State of Washington v. … of immunity.

Wilcox v. State

342 Ark. 388 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 18, 2000

The United States Supreme Court noted that “by using the precise terminology ‘lacking in establishing beyond a reasonable doubt,’ the highest court in Florida seems to have clearly said that there was insufficient evidence … [T]he Double Jeopardy Clause . . . should not exact the price of immunity for every defendant who persuades an appellate panel to overturn an error-free conviction and give him a second chance at acquittal.

Perkins v. Cedar Mountain Sewer Improvement District No. 43

360 Ark. 50 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 9, 2004

Standard of Review In bench trials, the standard of review on appeal is not whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the court, but whether the judge’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against … We, therefore, reverse and remand for the trial court to determine the portion of compensatory damages awarded that qualify as “preliminary expenses” under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-238 . 5.

Riggs v. Hot Springs

181 Ark. 377 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 17, 1930

Dillon is clearly pointed out. The court there said: “It is noticeable that he supports the first proposition of his text by the citation of Cooley, Const. … But this immunity from impeachment for fraudulent motives, or abuse of power, does not attach to all the acts of a city council which may assume the form of an ordinance.’

Vick v. Cecil

368 Ark. 369 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 4, 2007

, 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (f) (2000), which states: No termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified … court determined that “[Dennis and Lois] are morally fit to have the custody of the child and are physically and financially able to furnish suitable support, nurture, and education for the child and furthermore desire to establish

Murry v. State

209 Ark. 1062 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 29, 1946

In other words, under our statute, if there be no proof of the specific intent to take life except the extra-judicial confession of such intent, then the offense of assault with intent to kill is not established, and if this … L. ( 37 A. 959 ): ‘As observed by the learned judge in the Martin case, this rule should be applied with caution, that no undue or dangerous immunity or license be given to crime by persons whose passions are inflamed by

Ligon v. Newman

365 Ark. 510 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 9, 2006

While the evidence in this matter clearly indicates that Mr. … In addition, there was a pattern established whereby Mr. Newman wrongfully retained monies that did not belong to him.

Hervey v. Southern Wooden Box, Inc.

253 Ark. 290 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 23, 1972

These customers include independently owned grocery stores, drug stores, branches of large chain stores, restaurants and other establishments engaged in the sale of food or beverage for consumption. … Company for a valuable consideration does not qualify as a “sale for resale”.

Green v. Carder

282 Ark. 239 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 16, 1984

In their decision, the Board cited the following factors: (1) That the applicant is legally and morally qualified to hold the applied for permit; (2) That the proposed outlet will not greatly reduce the number of parking … If we were to hold otherwise, we would doubtless be substituting our judgment for that of the Board, an exercise in discretion we are clearly not afforded under the rule established in Gordon v. Cummings, supra.

Bennett v. McGough

281 Ark. 414 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 1984

I agree we should uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous. In this case the chancellor and the majority of this court are clearly erroneous, in my opinion. … He earns take home pay of $1,600 per month and these children would become covered under his insurance and would qualify for other benefits. The grandparents did visit.

Milam v. Bank of Cabot

327 Ark. 256 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 10, 1997

Milam and James Milam to establish that neither suffered any damages as a result of the Wood report. … The slander claim is clearly time-barred.

Harvey v. Ridgeway

248 Ark. 35 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 1970

Under any view taken, Senator Harvey is qualified and eligible to serve as a delegate to the Arkansas Constitutional Convention and at the same time to serve as a state Senator.” … In our opinion, this contention is clearly untenable, and cannot be sustained by the authorities. In a territory, the source of all power is Congress.