Case law

Antonio Jamar Guyton v. State of Arkansas

601 S.W.3d 440 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 29, 2020

The court clearly had jurisdiction under these facts. 2. … Fourth-degree sexual assault is a qualifying sex offense subject to the Act’s reporting requirements. Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-903(13)(i)(f). Guyton was convicted of this qualifying sex offense in 2002.

Brandon v. Arkansas Western Gas Co.

76 Ark. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 5, 2001

We reversed and remanded on that issue with directions to the Commission to determine whether appellants’ action meets all of the prerequisites and necessary criteria as may be established by the Commission to qualify as … We reverse and remand on this issue with directions to the Commission to determine whether appellants’ action meets all of the prerequisites and necessary criteria as may be established by the Commission to qualify as a maintainable

Jones v. State

45 Ark. App. 28 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 23, 1994

He clearly knew appellant and the particular apartment in which appellant lived. … Clearly, the burden was upon appellant to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. On appeal, the burden is on an appellant to bring up a record sufficient to demonstrate error. Irvin v. State, 28 Ark.

Carrick v. State

488 S.W.3d 541 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 9, 2016

There was no clearly expressed requirement that appellant bring an attorney to court with him. … Here, the court clearly had the authority to preside over criminal matters.

Hicks v. Flanagan

30 Ark. App. 53 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 17, 1990

When appellants purchased their property in 1985, a survey established that the true boundary between the properties was approximately eleven feet north of the existing fence. … Baumann, 231 Ark. 278 , 329 S.W.2d 161 (1960), the supreme court noted that an honest claimant, unless previously warned, might not think to qualify his answers so as to claim what he considered to be his own, but would state

Metzgar v. Rodgers

83 Ark. App. 354 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 5, 2003

The trial court’s finding of fact on this issue is not clearly erroneous. In fact, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the original CDs’ interest was reinvested or rolled over through the years. … Fehrman’s testimony clearly demonstrated that they were the same. As with the other tracing issues, this is a finding of fact that is not clearly erroneous.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stotts

49 S.W.3d 667 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jul 5, 2001

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. … establishes the causal connection."

Burns v. Stewart

382 S.W.3d 699 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 9, 2011

The actions of Stewart and Jackson clearly demonstrated an agreement between the two of them that the fence would be treated as the boundary between their respective properties. … If Stewart’s actions regarding the fence line do not qualify as acquiescence, I fail to see what would. I would reverse the decision of the trial court.

Clark v. Randolph County

71 Ark. App. 112 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 27, 2000

Randolph County then filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the county and its officers and employees, while acting on behalf of the county, have tort immunity. … Our standard of review with regard to summary judgment is well established.

Harper v. State

7 Ark. App. 28 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1982

There was evidence in the record that appellant had sold marijuana on at least one prior occasion and clearly he was able to produce a large amount in a short period of time. … Defense counsel objected on the grounds that the officer was not an expert qualified to make a quantitative analysis of dry weight.

Centerpoint Energy Gas Transmission Co. v. Green

2012 Ark. App. 326 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 9, 2012

In reviewing the findings after a bench trial, we reverse only if the findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. King v. French, 2011 Ark. App. 257 , 383 S.W.3d 426 . … Pearce, however, testified about his qualifications as an appraiser at length, including that he had been qualified as an expert in previous cases.

Little v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

499 S.W.3d 233 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Aug 31, 2016

App. 362 establish or reestablish her fitness to parent K.L. After Doug Little’s sexual abuse of K.L. over a two-year period was discovered, the circuit court found K.L. dependent-neglected for a second time. … The circuit court’s best-interest finding is not clearly erroneous.

Shields v. State

29 Ark. App. 141 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 1, 1989

Accordingly, we hold the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory purpose as is required in Batson. 298 Ark. at 58-59 . See also Smith v. State, 294 Ark. 357 , 742 S.W.2d 936 (1988). … The Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified

Patricia Williams v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child

2025 Ark. App. 507 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 29, 2025

The standard of review on appeal is de novo, and we will reverse only if the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Id. … In Freeman, we rejected Freeman’s argument that “the natural-parent preference must prevail unless it is established that the natural parent is unfit,” observing that “[Stamps v.

Smith v. Lovelace

2014 Ark. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 4, 2014

disregarded Arkansas Code Annotated section 28-65-204 (Repl. 2012), which provides parental and blood or marriage relationships as preferences for guardians, and section 28-65-210, which requires that the guardian be qualified … Keeping in mind the standard established in Graham, supra, and James, we cannot say that the circuit court’s order was clearly erroneous. Affirmed. VAUGHT and BROWN, JJ., agree. Darrell F.

Hinton v. Bethany Christian Services

462 S.W.3d 361 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 6, 2015

In support of her second argument, she asserts that it was clearly the intent of the Pulaski County Circuit Court to appoint her as permanent guardian, contending that the use of the word “temporary” in the body of the … The Pulaski County order failed to reflect that Sheaquonda’s incapacity had been established by the evidence required in this section. 3 This language merely repeats language from the initial, temporary guardianship

Moore v. State

558 S.W.3d 918 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 31, 2018

Clear and convincing evidence is proof that will produce in the trier of fact a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established. … The denial of a motion to transfer will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. Nichols v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 397 , 466 S.W.3d 431 .

Fukunaga v. State

2014 Ark. App. 4 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 8, 2014

Second, Fukunaga argues that admitting a criminal investigator’s testimony was error because he was not qualified as an expert and that his descriptions of behavior of sexual-abuse victims in general and his opinions on … It was up to defense counsel to establish through cross-examination when an alleged motive to fabricate arose because that was clearly part of Fukunaga’s defense, and not the State’s case-in-chief.

Weiner v. Merchant Capital Grp., LLC

686 S.W.3d 32 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 21, 2024

Ohana now appeals the dismissal, arguing that the contract qualifies as a security under the Arkansas Securities Act. … Here, the circuit court erroneously stated that the holding of Waters required an analysis of only the five-factor Smith test to determine whether the Agreement qualifies as a security.

McMullen v. Healthcare Staffing Associates, Inc.

2012 Ark. App. 617 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 31, 2012

On September 17, 2009, the trial court granted summary judgment to AEO based on the charitable-immunity doctrine; however, the court of appeals reversed this order on March 2, 2011. McMullen v. Ark. … The contract between Defendant Healthcare Staffing Associates and Arkansas Elder Outreach is clear in its terms that Healthcare Staffing Associates’ obligation is to provide qualified medical employees in the quantity and