Case law

Beck v. State

12 Ark. App. 341 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 10, 1984

Having qualified as an expert, Branch’s testimony and opinion established at least a fact question for the jury concerning whether the seized weapon was a machine gun. … Appellant offered no evidence to rebut Branch’s opinion, and the jury clearly resolved that fact question against the appellant. Affirmed. Cracraft, C.J., and Cloninger, J., agree.

Ralls v. Mittlesteadt

268 Ark. 741 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 5, 1980

Article 5, Section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution only grants immunity to the state itself, not to employees of the state. … We are persuaded that the case at bar is clearly not a suit against the state, and is controlled by Kelly v. Wood, supra. See also Ross v. Rich, 210 Ark. 74 , 194 S.W. 2d 297 (1946).

City of Gravette v. Centerton Waterworks and Sewer Commission and City of Centerton

2019 Ark. App. 540 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 13, 2019

Centerton’s motion for summary judgment asserted sovereign immunity; it argued that the plain language of Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-208-102 rendered it inapplicable; and that it was categorically entitled to protection … The qualifying federal loans made to rural districts are “to provide for the application or establishment of soil conservation practices, shifts in land use, the conservation, development, use, and control of

Brown v. State

38 Ark. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 1, 1992

In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we make an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances and reverse only if the ruling was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence … We believe the officer’s testimony regarding his training that dealt in depth with the horizontal gaze nystagmus test was sufficient to establish him as an expert witness qualified to discuss the details and results of the

Upton v. Upton

26 Ark. App. 78 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 16, 1988

The Arkansas Supreme Court, however, has held that the attorney who drafted a will and was named therein as attorney for the estate was a qualified attesting witness. Sullivant v. … App. 233 , 657 S.W.2d 572 (1983), after citing some of the cases cited here, this court stated: The requirements for establishing an attested will must be read together and construed to permit establishment of the will by

Hicks v. Faith

2011 Ark. App. 330 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 4, 2011

In Devine, the supreme court held that the principle established in custody cases — that the law prefers a parent over a grandparent unless the parent is proved to be incompetent or unfit — applied in guardianship cases. … We hold that the court’s findings regarding whether Jeremy was qualified and suitable and what was in Logan’s best interest are not clearly erroneous; therefore, we affirm the court’s order. Affirmed.

Montana Weiner and Ohana Construction & Property Maintenance, LLC v. Merchant Capital Group, LLC, D/B/A Greenbox Capital Group, LLC

2026 Ark. App. 243 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 22, 2026

Weiner clearly knew what they were doing. As far as a regulatory scheme to govern this contract, there clearly is none. And I am unwilling to judicially impose one. … And the manner in which that creditor was paid was established by the parties’ contract.

Powhatan Cemetery, Inc. v. Colbert

104 Ark. App. 290 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 4, 2009

— are clearly erroneous. … Appellees maintain that the trial court’s findings are not clearly erroneous.

Patrick v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

489 S.W.3d 683 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 20, 2016

This information included the security video that—according to appellant—clearly and accurately sets forth appellant’s activities on the morning in question. … Appellees demonstrated a prima facie case of entitlement to this qualified privilege, and appellant failed to meet proof with proof to demonstrate that there was any basis to bar appellees from the benefit of the qualified

Mearns v. Mearns

58 Ark. App. 42 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 4, 1997

Clearly, this directive contemplates the continued self-employment of the payor. … Finally, Monid argues that the value set by the court was clearly erroneous.

Moore v. State

58 Ark. App. 120 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1997

The rule was deciphered more clearly in Prater v. State, 307 Ark. 180 , 820 S.W.2d 429 (1991). … if he were qualified as an expert.

Guthrie v. State

575 S.W.3d 460 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 10, 2019

The trial court concluded that Guthrie had failed to overcome the presumption that Pearson was unbiased and qualified to serve. II. … Jurors are presumed unbiased and qualified to serve. Howard v. State , 367 Ark. 18 , 238 S.W.3d 24 (2006).

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stotts

74 Ark. App. 428 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 10, 2001

establishes the causal connection." … Thrash's report contained no qualifying words, such as, maybe, or possibly, regarding appellee's injury. Dr. Thrash simply found that appellee had suffered the injuries. We hold that Dr.

Petersen v. Dean

102 Ark. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 30, 2008

I find that the loss of the relationship between the petitioners and [KP] continues to be likely to harm the child and that it would clearly be in her best interest for that relationship to be re-established. … Appellant contends that these witnesses were not mental health professionals and thus were not qualified to offer an opinion on this matter.

Hardesty v. Baptist Health

431 S.W.3d 327 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2013

App. 731 of Civil Procedure 36(b) (2012) clearly states that a trial court can permit withdrawal or amendment of responses to answers to requests for admission. … Once a moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Id.

Baucum Fulk v. Marion Fulk, Martin Fulk, and Austin Fulk

2022 Ark. App. 338 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 21, 2022

Testimony presented established that Baucum also hunted at the Duck Club and enjoyed it for many years. … The evidence presented at trial demonstrates that Baucum is qualified, able, and fit to serve as executor of Gus’s estate.

Dequon Israel v. State of Arkansas

2026 Ark. App. 158 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 4, 2026

Brooke Digby with the Arkansas Public Defender Commission testified that there were more options for Israel than DYS and that he could potentially qualify for residential placement and reentry programs in the juvenile … Regardless, the testimony established that Israel’s placement in a juvenile program would be difficult due to his defiance and physical aggression. The circuit court did not clearly err.

Jones v. Scott

92 Ark. App. 85 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 22, 2005

The following was established at the hearing on the guardianship petition. Barbara Scott is age forty-seven and Chester Scott is sixty-nine. … In a guardianship proceeding, there is a preference for the natural parent, unless it is established that the natural parent is unfit. Id.

Baucum Fulk v. Marion Fulk, Martin Fulk, and Austin Fulk

2022 Ark. App. 338 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 21, 2022

Testimony presented established that Baucum also hunted at the Duck Club and enjoyed it for many years. … The evidence presented at trial demonstrates that Baucum is qualified, able, and fit to serve as executor of Gus’s estate.

Sanders v. State

567 S.W.3d 76 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 12, 2018

Evidence presented at trial established, among other things, that Sanders trapped the minor victim in his van, *80 which was parked behind a local Walmart. … We agree with the State's assertion that the act of confining the victim in a van at a place where the van cannot be seen for the purpose of raping her is "restraint" such that it qualifies as physical force under the statute