Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
658 results
0.29s
Dodd v. Sparks Regional Medical Center
90 Ark. App. 191 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 2, 2005
Appellees responded that the witnesses appellant offered did not qualify as experts, that there was no testimony setting forth the applicable standard of care, and that appellant had failed to establish that the failure to … Clearly, such claims fall within the purview of the Medical Malpractice Act. Dodson v. Charter Behavioral Health System, Inc., supra; Spring Creek Living Center v. Sarrett, 319 Ark. 259 , 890 S.W.2d 598 (1995).
Cited 17 timesPublished575 S.W.3d 612 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 17, 2019
However, our court will not reverse findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. … Accordingly, the court did not clearly err in finding that the evidence regarding the location of the alleged boundary line was insufficient to establish a boundary by acquiescence.
Cited 2 timesPublished2025 Ark. App. 336 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 28, 2025
You can’t bring it in when she wasn’t qualified as an expert. … This court will not reverse findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id.
Cited 2 timesPublished2014 Ark. App. 299 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 14, 2014
We review adoption proceedings de novo on the record, but we will not reverse the trial court’s decision unless its findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, after giving due regard … Because appellant is the child’s father with established rights, his written consent is required before the child may be adopted unless appellant’s consent is rendered unnecessary because he has, for a period of at least
Cited 3 timesPublished2011 Ark. App. 503 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 7, 2011
We will not, however, reverse findings of fact |4unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. … Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed Gibbs Ferguson to be qualified as an expert for appellee based upon a previous affidavit admitted in the original trial.
Cited 8 timesPublished81 Ark. App. 434 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 23, 2003
Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-65-204(e) (Supp. 2001) establishes the right of a person tested for alcohol content at the direction of a law enforcement officer to have an additional test performed as follows: (e)(1) The person … tested may have a physician or a qualified technician, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his own choice administer a complete chemical test in addition to any test administered at the direction of a law enforcement
Cited 1 timesPublished2025 Ark. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 21, 2025
Pink Bud asserted that Nurse Scott’s affidavit was insufficient to meet the burden because she is not qualified to opine as to causation. … The interplay between Bishop’s numerous medical conditions, including her longstanding cardiorespiratory issues, the effects it had on her immune system, and the contraction of pneumonia, is far too intricate to fall within
Cited 1 timesPublished2022 Ark. App. 467 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 16, 2022
The circuit court found that appellants had established a prescriptive easement to use the North and South Roads over the Paynes’ property. … The right to hunt and fish, technically known as a profit à prendre, or a qualified ownership, in the land for limited purpose of hunting and fishing, is a valuable and well- recognized right and may be transferred between
Cited 1 timesPublished2021 Ark. App. 266 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 26, 2021
Social Host/Proximate Cause 9 Finally, Bates contends the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish that his furnishing alcohol to Collins was the proximate cause of his death. … Johnson, 2009 Ark. 92, at 11–13, 303 S.W.3d 46, 51–52 (holding that plaintiff was not required to plead the existence of liability insurance to defeat qualified immunity; the defendant, rather, was required to prove its
Cited 5 timesPublishedEntergy Arkansas, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission
2011 Ark. App. 453 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 22, 2011
They have settled and established meanings. These two provisions simply are irreconcilable.” He also ruled that the filed-rate doctrine must yield to the Arkansas Constitution. … Entergy involves the “public welfare and defense.” 4 We agree with the PSC that the term “educational purposes,” which is not expressly listed in the “public welfare and defense” exception to article 12, section 12, is clearly
Cited 1 timesPublishedHome Care Professionals of Arkansas, Inc. v. Williams
95 Ark. App. 194 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 10, 2006
Upon remand, the Board found that the remunerations qualified as wages. From that decision HCP now brings this appeal. … HCP specifically argues that the remuneration received by the caregivers does not constitute wages for the purpose of establishing unemployment insurance liability.
Cited 9 timesPublished2011 Ark. App. 243 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 30, 2011
Noting that the General Assembly may limit tort liability only when there is an employment relationship between the parties, id. at 9, 350 S.W.3d at 806 , the court concluded as follows: In the instant case, as so clearly … A concurring opinion agreed but stated that the court of appeals’ opinion “[did] not clearly hold, in the last paragraph of its November 11, 2009 opinion, that [Johnson] may proceed with a tort claim against ...
Cited 0 timesPublished2022 Ark. App. 467 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 16, 2022
The circuit court found that appellants had established a prescriptive easement to use the North and South Roads over the Paynes’ property. … The right to hunt and fish, technically known as a profit à prendre, or a qualified ownership, in the land for limited purpose of hunting and fishing, is a valuable and well- recognized right and may be transferred between
Cited 1 timesPublishedScarlett Tapp and Timothy Perry v. Jamie Luper and Brian Luper
638 S.W.3d 18 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 17, 2021
Simply put, an unpardoned felon who is a relative of a child may serve as a guardian of the minor’s person (but not property) if the felon is otherwise qualified under Arkansas law. Ark. … This in turn means Jamie is not qualified to guard the children under the relative exception. We address this argument below.
Cited 0 timesPublished103 Ark. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 29, 2008
Accordingly, Reed failed to meet her burden of establishing her ownership of the land in question. We agree that the trial court erred in finding that Reed was an heir. … We believe that the trial court clearly erred in finding that Reed was Langdon’s heir.
Cited 1 timesPublishedHall v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 11, 2012
The appellate inquiry is whether the trial court’s finding that the disputed fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. J.T. v. Ark. … The ICWA establishes minimum federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of Indian children into foster or adoptive homes.
Cited 15 timesPublishedFletcher v. Farm Bureau Insurance Co.
10 Ark. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 30, 1983
Other doctors testified concerning their treatment or evaluation of appellant, and none of their testimonies established that appellant’s symptomology or condition was caused by formaldehyde exposure. … Clearly, the study was neither newly discovered evidence nor admissible as such.
Cited 1 timesPublished35 Ark. App. 185 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 2, 1991
The Harbison court was not required to decide whether, and under what circumstances, expert testimony might be necessary to establish that a given amount of a drug is a “usable” quantity. … Generally, the tendency is to permit the jury to hear the testimony of the person with superior knowledge in a given field unless clearly lacking in either training or experience, and too rigid a standard should be avoided
Cited 4 timesPublished450 S.W.3d 247 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 3, 2014
We review probate proceedings de novo on the record but will not reverse a circuit court’s factual determinations unless they are clearly erroneous. 6 A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support … the words their ordinary meaning and usually accepted meaning in common language. 16 lfiArkansas Code Annotated section 28-65-212 uses the word “shall” which is typically mandatory; however, appellees note that it is well-established
Cited 6 timesPublished492 S.W.3d 81 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 4, 2016
Therefore, we hold that the circuit court did not clearly err in determining ]flthe Livelys established a significant and viable relationship with K.L.1, The question answer to whether the Livelys established a significant … Best Interest Even though the circuit court did not clearly err in finding the Livelys had established |sa significant and viable relationship with the children, we hold that this case must be reversed because the Livelys
Cited 3 timesPublished
Ask Donna