Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,277 results
1.59s
Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 20, 1989
The only exception to the doctrine was noted by the court in CASH, by quoting the following language from CHAPMAN DEWEY LAND CO. v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS ST. … No such power existed in the board in the case at bar.
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 18, 1998
(4) Is the holding in Cross v. … See, e.g. , Cross v. Bruce, 284 Ark. 230 , 681 S.W.2d 339 (1984); Orrell Abernathy v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 24, 1990
Chaffin v. Arkansas Game and Fish Comm'n, 296 Ark. 431 , 437 , 757 S.W.2d 950 (1988) (quoting from Board of Regents of Higher Education v. … Judge, 168 Mont. 433 , 543 P.2d 1323 (1975) (on whether line item restrictions in a university system appropriation bill infringe on the authority of the university board)).
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 5, 2002
Cathyrn Hinshaw, Executive Director Arkansas Fire and Police Pension Review Board P.O. Drawer 34164 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Ms. … Boothe v. Boothe, 341 Ark. 381 , 17 S.W.3d 464 (2000). In my opinion, it is possible to read A.C.A. § 24-11-827 and A.C.A. § 24-11-818 (f) so that both can be given effect.
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 17, 1989
The case of Gladson v. … No authority was given in the ordinance creating the board for that body to employ a superintendent.
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 12, 2002
Box 1038 North Little Rock, AR 72115-1038 Dear Senator Hoofman: I am writing in response to your request for my opinion on several questions raised by the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Maumelle Suburban Improvement … Moreover, as the Arkansas Supreme Court noted in Quapaw Central Business Improvement District v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 10, 2001
The Honorable Mark Riable, Chair Board of Trustees Arkansas Schools for the Blind and the Deaf P.O. … RESPONSE It is my understanding that your questions are at issue in the recently filed case of John Doe et al. v. Carl Barger et al., U.S. District Court Case No. 4-01-CV-00196 (E.D. Ark. 2001).
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 3, 2005
It has come to my attention that the issues you have raised are currently the subject of litigation in the case City of Russellville Police Pension Retirement Board v. Gibson, et al.
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 23, 2006
Flowers v. … (citing State v. Havens, 337 Ark. 161 , 987 S.W.2d 686 (1999)). The intent that is reflected by an act as a whole should further take precedence over any intent reflected by isolated words or sections. See Kifer v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 17, 2002
Jackson v. Blytheville Civ. Serv. Com., 345 Ark. 56 , 43 S.W.3d 748 (2001); Looper v. Gordon, 201 Ark. 841 , 147 S.W.2d 24 (1941). … Looper v. Gordon, 201 Ark. at 847 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · May 7, 2007
Fulkerson v. Refunding Board, 201 Ark. 957 , 147 S.W.2d 980 (1941).
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 15, 1993
Jobe v. Caldwell, 93 Ark. 503 , 513 , 125 S.W. 423 (1910). See also Dickinson v. Clibourn, 125 Ark. 101 , 187 S.W. 909 (1916); Grable v. Blackwood, 180 Ark. 311 , 22 S.W.2d 41 (1929); Scougale v. … See generally Arnold v. City of Jonesboro, 227 Ark. 832 , 302 S.W.2d 91 (1957).
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 30, 2005
See Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306 , 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998); Ops. Att'y Gen. Nos. 2001-123 ; 99-054. … , commission, or instrumentality thereof; (2) Any political subdivision of the State of Arkansas, or any agency thereof, (3) Any school board or school district; (4) Any improvement or other taxing or assessing district;
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 9, 2004
See e.g., Smith v. Refunding Board, 192 Ark. 145 , 90 S.W.2d 494 (1936). See also, City of Sioux City v. Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance, 666 N.W.2d 587 (2003); Silver Lake Sanitary District v. … Brockette, 534 S.W.2d 401 (1976); Harris County Water Control Improvement District No. 58 v. City of Houston, 357 S.W.2d 789 (1962); Ashton v. State, 173 Neb. 78 , 112 N.W.2d 540 (1961); Golding v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 19, 2009
Henderson , 491 So.2d 647 (La. 1986); Gantt v. State , 675 A.2d 581 (Md.App. 1996); State v. Claborn , 879 P.2d 169 (Okl.Cr. 1994); State v. Summers , 592 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1990). … See Yarbrough v. Witty , 336 Ark. 479 , 987 S.W.2d 257 (1999); Lawhon Farm Servs. v. Brown , 335 Ark. 272 , 984 S.W.2d 1 (1998); Citizens To Establish A Reform Party v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 6, 2002
meaning of the contractor licensing statutes must obtain licenses from the board. … See Brimer v. Arkansas Contractors Licensing, 312 Ark. 401 , 849 S.W.2d 948 (1993). The requirement that both labor and materials costs be considered is also reflected in A.C.A. § 17-25-103 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · May 20, 2005
Fulkerson v. Refunding Board, 201 Ark. 957 , 147 S.W.2d 980 (1941).
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 31, 1988
Bearing in mind the precept that the more specific statute controls the general, Brown Root, Inc., v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 10, 1992
Special School District No. 60 v. Special School District No. 2, 181 Ark. 253 , 257 , 25 S.W.2d 443 (1930). … This conclusion is suggested by the general precept that our state constitution is not a grant, but a limitation of power ( Black v. Cockrill, 239 Ark. 367 , 389 S.W.2d 881 (1965)), and by the case of Dickinson v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · May 1, 1992
Fulkerson v. Refunding Board of Arkansas, 201 Ark. 957 , 147 S.W.2d 980 (1940).
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna