Case law

Courtney Holmes v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

505 S.W.3d 730 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 26, 2016

App. 495 standard of review is whether findings of fact were clearly erroneous); Merriman v. … Yutterman, 291 Ark. 207, 723 S.W.2d 823 (1987) (right to reform deed must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and standard of review is whether trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous); Robinson v.

Samuels v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

443 S.W.3d 599 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 1, 2014

The court, however, does not have to determine that every factor considered be established by clear and convincing evidence; instead, after considering all of the factors, the evidence must be clear and convincing that … He admits that he failed to raise this below, but contends it qualifies as a Wicks exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule. Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980).

Kimbro Stephens Insurance Trust and A.K. Tennessee Irrevocable Residuary Trust v. James E. Smith, Jr.; Kimberly Woodyard; And Smith Akins & Gladden, P.A.

2021 Ark. App. 127 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 17, 2021

The circuit court determined that the appellees were immune from liability under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-22-310 (Supp. 2019), the attorney-immunity statute, because the appellants and … the requirement had been established.

Minton v. Minton

2010 Ark. App. 310 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 14, 2010

A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, we are left on the entire evidence with the firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. … Adrian essentially concedes that Norma qualifies as a credible witness, and |fiwe agree.

Chandler v. Baker

16 Ark. App. 253 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 11, 1985

The tests shall be made by a duly qualified physician, or physicians, or by another duly qualified person, or persons, not to exceed three (3), to be appointed by the court. … To the contrary, the statute clearly states that these experts shall be subject to cross-examination.

Jordan v. Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc.

64 Ark. App. 58 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 4, 1998

Moreover, the plans, which were admitted into evidence, do not clearly show how deep the excavation was required to be at the point in question. … In the instant case, Jordan’s own testimony establishes that the cause of the accident was an oncoming vehicle that he perceived to be in his lane and his actions in swerving or jerking his truck off the roadway.

Jones v. State

31 Ark. App. 23 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 4, 1990

We hold that the trial court’s finding that appellant participated in the burglary is not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … In the case at bar the State gave no reason for Harris’s absence and there is no contention that the trial court followed the procedure established by Goforth.

Ross v. Moore

30 Ark. App. 207 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 7, 1990

In this case, the appellee has totally failed to establish the statutory foundation which is a prerequisite to admission into evidence. … Cambiano testified that the blood tests were ordered by the county court and clearly National Paternity Laboratories did not qualify as a “representative of the lawyer.”

Morris v. Everett

7 Ark. App. 243 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 2, 1983

business for which the service is performed or is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which the service is performed; and (c) such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established … Subpart (c) clearly provides that in order to qualify for the exemption, appellant must show “to the satisfaction of the commissioner” that his drivers are “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation

Toney v. White

31 Ark. App. 34 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 11, 1990

Appellant’s defense was “good faith” or qualified immunity. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment. … The cases of the Arkansas Supreme Court discussed above clearly show that where an order effectively determines a matter, the order will be treated as appealable under Appellate Procedure Rule 2(a)(2) which provides that

Melanie Foster; Forest Roberts; Kathryn Clark; Christie Waggoner; Sawney Huckabay; And Allen Family Farm, Inc., an Arkansas Non-Profit Corporation v. Carla Muruaga-Atkins; Carol Ann Martin, Individually; Laura Martin, Individually; Laura Martin, as Mother and Next Friend of Two Unemancipated Minor Children; Caitlyn Peterson, Individually; Caitlyn Peterson, as Mother and Next Friend of Three Unemancipated Minor Children; And Kathryn Ahlefeld

700 S.W.3d 501 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 30, 2024

Standard of Review The standard of review on appeal from a bench trial is whether the circuit court’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … who was a member qualified to vote on the decision to list the property for sale.

Minor L. McNeil v. Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration; Robert Pugh, Manager; And Wade Gambill, Auditor

2021 Ark. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 27, 2021

Facts and Procedural History A long-standing disagreement has been established during multiple previous lawsuits between McNeil and DFA regarding what the Arkansas Constitution defines … as the reserved immunities of its people; what Arkansas taxing statutes clearly state—as passed by the legislature; and how those laws vary from the way in which DFA interprets and administers its tax programs.

Pop-A-Duck, Inc. v. Gardner

642 S.W.3d 220 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 23, 2022

Here, we find that the circuit court’s order reflects that the lower court was citing Anita and Merritt in an effort to explore what acts qualify as “adverse” rather than what qualifies as “hostile conduct.” … Public-Easement Analysis For their last point on appeal, appellants argue that the circuit court clearly erred by denying the appellants’ request to establish a public easement.

Bales v. City of Fort Smith

505 S.W.3d 705 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 19, 2016

Appellees have established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. … Sampson also alleges that his communications regarding improper overtime usage qualify him as a whistle-blower under the AWBA.

Buelow v. Madlock

90 Ark. App. 466 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 13, 2005

It was his opinion that the building would not have qualified for special coverage due to the nature of the building and its condition, but he admitted that he did not check to make sure that it would not qualify. … Examples include express agreement, long established relationships of entrustment in which the agent clearly appreciates the duty of giving advice, additional compensation apart from premium payments, and the agent holding

Pace v. State

2010 Ark. App. 491 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 16, 2010

Value may be sufficiently established by circumstances that clearly show a value in excess of the statutory requirement, including through the testimony of a witness who actually knows the value of the property. … We find no merit in appellant’s attempt to qualify an employee’s testimony regarding the value of merchandise based upon a certain number of price tags that the employee must read before qualifying to testify on the issue

Hinchey v. Taylor

2015 Ark. App. 207 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 1, 2015

This ordinance amended the 1983 ordinance and purported to prove ownership of established county roads by attaching a list of established roads, including Circle H Road, and a county road map. … The standard of review on appeal from a bench trial is not whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the circuit court, but whether the circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against

Bales v. City of Fort Smith, Arkansas

2016 Ark. App. 356 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Aug 24, 2016

Like Bales and Entmeier, Sampson is clearly a public employee, and the FSPD is a public employer under the Act. … Sampson also alleges that his communications regarding improper overtime usage qualify him as a whistle-blower under the AWBA.

A.M. v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. App. 418 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 3, 2021

Defense counsel also asserted that the premeditated and deliberate portion of the capital- murder allegation had not been established by the evidence. … In light of this evidence, we hold that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding Dr. Silber to be a qualified expert within the meaning of the statute. A.M.’s second argument is that even if Dr.

Oliver v. Oliver

70 Ark. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 21, 2000

The parties agreed to equally divide the value of the plans as of the date of the divorce decree and property-settlement agreement by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”). … The standards governing our review of a chancery, court decision are well established.