Case law

Bradley Snider v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

612 S.W.3d 199 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 28, 2020

App. 119. 3 the disputed fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. 9 A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support … App. 352, 584 S.W.3d 258. 9  Having carefully examined the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that counsel has complied with the requirements established by the

Kantor v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child

559 S.W.3d 747 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 12, 2018

Here, the extensive documentation regarding Rebecca found in the service plan arguably qualifies as an evaluation. … Because we hold that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that DHS proved Rebecca's incapacitation as required by the statute, we do not address Linda's argument that David was not qualified in that he had not appointed

Alfredo Martinez v. Rliable Poultry, LLC

2026 Ark. App. 313 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 20, 2026

This clause clearly meant that A&L Hernandez should consider OSHA safety standards in performing the work; it does not say that Reliable agrees to enforce OSHA safety standards on A&L Hernandez employees. … On the other hand, the exclusive-remedy provision in Tennessee immunizes both the subcontractor and the general contractor as long as workers’ 12 compensation insurance

Barnes v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration

2012 Ark. App. 237 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 4, 2012

ABC clearly defines the statutory term “entertainment” to include “food service,” and it clearly regarded Lamar’s Bistro and Bayou Bistro to be part and parcel of the same operation. … We cannot say that the Board is clearly wrong in its interpretation.

Sawada v. Walmart Stores, Inc.

473 S.W.3d 60 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 7, 2015

The circuit court, in turn, found that Walmart established a “prima facie entitlement to a qualified privilege on their communications with law enforcement and [Sawada] failed to meet [Walmart’s] proof with proof demonstrating … We hold that Sawada has not clearly expressed or developed an argument supporting reversal of her false-light claim. See Alexander v.

Trujillo v. TK Martial Arts Academy, LLC

474 S.W.3d 519 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 28, 2015

To be enforceable, the contract must clearly set out what negligent liability is to be avoided. Id. … In Culpepper, the supreme court established a condition for immunity by looking to the plaintiff’s complaint, which asserted that individuals were acting within the course and scope of their duties and employment.

Swn Production Company (Arkansas), LLC v. Mark Stobaugh, in His Official Capacity as Conway County Assessor; Conway County Board of Equalization; Conway County, Arkansas; Conway County Treasurer; And Ocnway County Tax Collector

634 S.W.3d 551 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 8, 2021

SWN was not required to plead that the assessment was manifestly excessive, clearly erroneous, or confiscatory. Ark. Code Ann. § 26-27-318(d)(2) (Repl. 2020). … The supreme court also held that the director was entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of Mc, a Minor, Sandra Andraca v. Patricia Tice

2025 Ark. App. 292 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 7, 2025

The Court finds that counsel’s argument is clearly not supported by the evidence submitted at trial. … A circuit court’s order establishing guardianship shall contain findings of fact that the respondent is an incapacitated person and is in need of a guardian. Ark.

Heather Galli v. Linda Jones and Vinton Jones

627 S.W.3d 434 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 2, 2021

The evidence thus establishes that A.C. would be at risk of harm in Heather’s custody. … In my view, the majority has established an unseemly precedent for any mother who has been the victim of domestic abuse.

Camp v. State

26 Ark. App. 299 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 8, 1989

Here the roadblock was established for the purpose of ascertaining that only qualified drivers and safe vehicles were using the highways. … At the roadblock were four state police patrol cars, clearly identifiable as such, with their blue lights flashing. All five officers were in full uniform and recognizable as state police officers.

Mercouri v. State

540 S.W.3d 328 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 31, 2018

Mercouri has unsuccessfully established how counsel's performance was deficient. E. … Jurors are presumed unbiased and qualified to serve. Id.

Maxwell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

90 Ark. App. 223 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 9, 2005

In this appeal, appellant argues that the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous regarding T.M. … In reviewing the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence, we will not reverse unless the trial court clearly erred in finding that the relevant facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. Baker v.

Toney v. Haskins

7 Ark. App. 98 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 12, 1983

Haskins’ testimony, if believed and admissible, would clearly establish both the relationship and that the agent had gained a secret profit by a breach of his duty to the principal. … Toney contends that Haskins’ testimony to establish that relationship was violative of the parol evidence rule.

Baptist Memorial Hospital – Jonesboro, Inc. v. Hannah Towell, in Her Official Capacity as Tax Assessor for Craighead County, Arkansas

2026 Ark. App. 209 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 1, 2026

Our review begins with a well-established principle established by the Arkansas Supreme Court: “Taxation is the rule, and exemption is the exception.” Id. at 2, 585 S.W.3d at 179 (citing City of Fayetteville v. … The burden of proof required to establish entitlement to exemption For their first assignment of error, appellants argue that the circuit court erred with respect to the burden of proof required to establish entitlement

Dollar General Corporation; Dolgencorp, LLC, D/B/A Dollar General; Caddo Trading Co., Inc.; Rodney Fagan and Judy Fagan v. Karen Renee Elder

2019 Ark. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 13, 2019

Elder sought to establish causation through the testimony of Dr. Carson and herself. … Clearly, any expert has experience and expertise, but not all experience and expertise are the same. 1 Here, Dr.

Gina Bettis v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., AKA Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC And Evan Connolly Bettis and Megan Marie Bettis, Trustees of the Victoria L. Bettis Living Trust

2023 Ark. App. 350 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Aug 30, 2023

This IRA was established, fully funded, and vested on July 24, 2020––sixteen days after Victor’s death. … It is dated July 24, 2020, and it clearly contains the parties’ agreement to 3 arbitrate.

Jennings v. Burford

60 Ark. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 22, 1997

We conclude that the chancery court’s finding that the meandering fence was a boundary fine by acquiescence was not clearly erroneous. … Askew testified that he had been a land surveyor for approximately twenty-five years, that he was qualified as a registered surveyor, and that he had conducted approximately 2,000 surveys.

Williams v. State

29 Ark. App. 61 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 27, 1989

On appeal he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the evidence of the value of the property was not given by a qualified expert, but by an employee who testified only as to … Holland clearly established a rational basis for his opinion and the value of the stolen items was a central factual issue in the case. Mr.

Cooper v. Cooper

431 S.W.3d 349 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 18, 2013

Skelton, 339 Ark. 227, 231 (Ark. 1999) (finding that Arkansas follows the well-established rule that retirement benefits earned during marriage are considered marital property subject to division. … App. 748 not qualified under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) because of the inclusion of a third party, Tim Cooper.

Bowman v. McFarlin

1 Ark. App. 235 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 29, 1981

The trial court properly placed the responsibility on the appellees for establishing to the jury’s satisfaction that the work done by the McFarlins was chargeable to the appellant. … discretion of the trial judge, and is not reviewable on appeal unless so clearly erroneous as to manifest abuse of discretion.