Case law

Sandra Foster v. the Manhattan Group, LLC, D/B/A Foster Motor Company

2023 Ark. App. 560 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 6, 2023

In support of reversal, Sandra argues that three cases have held that attorney’s fees are not permitted for litigating a replevin cause of action: McQuillan, supra; Brown v. Blake, 86 Ark. … The other two cases relied on by Sandra, Nef, supra, and Brown, supra, both reiterate that Ark.

Rankin v. DIRECTOR, ARK. EMPLOY. SEC. DEPT.

200 S.W.3d 928 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 12, 2005

This case has been the subject of two previous opinions, Rankin v. Director, 78 Ark.App. 174 , 79 S.W.3d 885 , reh'g denied, review denied (2002) ( Rankin I ); and Rankin v. … The appellate court loses jurisdiction to the trial court once the mandate is issued from the appellate court to the trial court, Barclay v.

Coble v. Sexton

71 Ark. App. 122 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 4, 2000

Miller v. Dyer, 243 Ark. 981 , 423 S.W.2d 275 (1968). However, where the meaning of a written contract is ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible to explain the writing. Brown and Hackney v. … Co. v. Smith, 218 Ark. 411 , 236 S.W.2d 583 (1951); Brown and Hackney v. Daubs, supra; Easton v. Washington County Ins. Co., 391 Pa. 28 , 137 A.2d 332 (1957).

Weavers v. Daniels

1 Ark. App. 55 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 18, 1981

Appellant cites Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971) and Kaylor v. Department of Human Resources, 32 Cal. App. 3d 732 , 108 Cal. … In Harris v. Daniels, 263 Ark. 897 , 567 S.W. 2d 954 (1978), the court stated: In appellate review under Ark. Stat.

A.I.M. v. State

2015 Ark. App. 658 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 12, 2015

BROWN, Judge Appellant appeals from the circuit court’s adjudication of his delinquency on charges of theft by receiving, a Class C felony, and minor in possession. … See D.F. v. State, CR-15-78. Reversed. VIRDEN, HARRISON, KINARD, and GLOVER, JJ., agree. GLADWIN, C.J., dissents. ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge, dissenting.

Lewis v. Director, Employment Security Department

90 Ark. App. 219 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 9, 2005

On appeal, the findings of the Board of Review are conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. Walls v. Director, 74 Ark. App. 424 , 49 S.W.3d 670 (2001). … Issues of credibiHty of witnesses and weight to be afforded their testimony are matters for the Board of Review to determine. Bradford v. Director, 83 Ark. App. 332 , 128 S.W.3d 20 (2003).

David Viele; Beth Viele, Individually and as Trustee for the Helen E. Viele Irrevocable Trust; And Beth's Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Corey Williams, in His Capacity as a Vice President of Centennial Bank; Ashley Moran, in Her Capacity as a Clerk for Centennial Bank; And Centennial Bank

625 S.W.3d 724 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 12, 2021

(the Board). … Bomar v. Moser, 369 Ark. 123, 251 S.W.3d 234 (2007). Summary judgment is proper, however, when the statute of limitations bars an action. Alexander v.

Ontaria Jackson v. Director, Division of Workforce Services

683 S.W.3d 218 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 24, 2024

Standard of Review Board decisions are upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. Blanton v. Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 205, 575 S.W.3d 186. … However, our function on appeal is not merely to rubber-stamp decisions arising from the Board. Thomas v. Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 468, 587 S.W.3d 612; Wilson v. Dir., 2017 Ark.

Graham v. Daniels

269 Ark. 774 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 18, 1980

The Board of Review affirmed the finding of the Appeals Tribunal. Claimant brings this appeal from the Board of Review’s decision. … Harris v. Daniels, 263 Ark. 897 , 567 S.W. 2d 954 (1978). The Act is remedial in nature and must be liberally construed in order to accomplish its beneficient purpose. Garrett v.

Haig v. Everett

8 Ark. App. 255 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 25, 1983

The appellant also argues that Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, _ U.S. _, 101 S.Ct. 1424 (1981), is controlling. … This rule requires that this Court review the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, and if there is substantial evidence to support the decision by the Board of Review, it must be affirmed. Harris v.

Westerman v. Singleton

9 Ark. App. 120 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jul 6, 1983

Citizens Bank v. Arkansas State Banking Board, 271 Ark. 703 , 610 S. W.2d 257 (1981). See also ABC Board of the State of Arkansas v. Blevins, 5 Ark. App. 107 , 633 S.W.2d 380 (1982). In Williams v. … From a review of the evidence, we cannot find that the ABC Board’s decision is arbitrary or in total disregard of the facts. White County Guaranty Savings and Loan Ass’n v.

Ashlock v. State

64 Ark. App. 253 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 16, 1998

Johnson v. State, 325 Ark. 197 , 926 S.W.2d 837 (1996). Here, Ashlock argues that Officer Brown’s testimony was prohibited by Rule 404 and that an admonition was insufficient. … In Johnson v.

Hughes v. State

467 S.W.3d 170 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 17, 2015

Leggins v. State, 271 Ark. 616, 609 S.W.2d 76 (1980). … GLADWIN, C.J., and BROWN, J., agree. Gregory Crain, for appellant. No response. 9

Hodnett v. Daniels

271 Ark. 479 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 17, 1980

Appellant through his attorney appealed the decision of the Appeals Tribunal to the Arkansas Board of Review. The Board of Review affirmed and adopted the Appeals Tribunal decision on June 26, 1980. … In a proceeding of this kind the Board’s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by evidence; which of course means substantial evidence.” Terry Dairy Products Co., Inc. v.

Sandra Foster v. the Manhattan Group, LLC, D/B/A Foster Motor Company

2023 Ark. App. 560 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 6, 2023

In support of reversal, Sandra argues that three cases have held that attorney’s fees are not permitted for litigating a replevin cause of action: McQuillan, supra; Brown v. Blake, 86 Ark. … The other two cases relied on by Sandra, Nef, supra, and Brown, supra, both reiterate that Ark.

Livingston v. State

2017 Ark. App. 15 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 18, 2017

See Wright v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 300, at 1–2; Tucker v. State, 47 Ark. App. 96, 885 S.W.2d 904 (1994). … GLOVER and BROWN, JJ., agree. N. Mark Kappenbach, for appellant. No response. 2

Rolling Pines Ltd. Partnership v. City of Little Rock

73 Ark. App. 97 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 14, 2001

Appellant appealed the Commission’s decision to the Litde Rock City Board of Directors. After a hearing on February 17, 1998, the Board tabled the issue for further consideration. … In the area of land use, a conditional use standard must be sufficiently specific to guide both an applicant in presenting his case and the Board in examining the proposed use. See Wakelin v.

Exson v. Everett

9 Ark. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 14, 1983

Brewer v. Everett, 3 Ark. App. 59 , 621 S.W.2d 883 (1981); Stagecoach Motel v. Krause, 267 Ark. 1093 , 593 S.W.2d 495 (Ark. App. 1980). In Willis Johnson Co. v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 795 , 601 S.W.2d 890 (Ark. … On appeal, this Court is required to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision reached by the Board of Review and to affirm the decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Harris v.

Paula Banks v. Director

2024 Ark. App. 287 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 1, 2024

V. … In unemployment cases, findings of fact by the Board are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, which is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Debnam v.

Deborah Wemette v. Director, Division of Workforce Services

2023 Ark. App. 367 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 6, 2023

OF REVIEW V. … Higgins v. Dir., 2016 Ark. App. 449, 503 S.W.3d 833. The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony are matters to be resolved by the Board. Id.