Case law

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.

Kimmons v. Kimmons

1 Ark. App. 63 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 18, 1981

Since this case and the issue of custody have not been fully developed in the trial below, this cause must be remanded so that the parties’ rights can be clearly determined. See Arkansas National Bank v. … The child, Jennifer, suffered from diaper rash to the point of bleeding; she had infected ears which required the surgical placement of tubes in her ears; and she had not been given her immunization shots.

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

Favano v. Elliott

2012 Ark. App. 484 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 12, 2012

Favano first argues that the trial court’s order granting Elliott visitation is clearly erroneous because there was insufficient proof that Elliott established a significant and viable relationship with M.F. … Though Favano did testify that a relationship with Elliott was in her daughter’s best interest, she also qualified this statement and further explained that court-ordered visitation was not in M.F.’s best interest.

Clark County, Ark. v. At&t Corp.

2026 Ark. App. 348 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 20, 2026

Standard of Review The standard of review on appeal from a bench trial is whether the circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. City of Rockport v. … of the state, is immune from ad valorem taxation).

Ritter v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

511 S.W.3d 343 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 18, 2017

In determining whether a finding is clearly erroneous, an appellate court gives due deference to the opportunity of the circuit court to assess the witnesses’ credibility. Id. … DHS counters that this argument is raised for the first time on appeal and that, in the alternative, the argument is unavailing because the ICWA establishes a higher standard of proof for terminations, not “grounds” for

Ouachita Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Evans-St. Clair

12 Ark. App. 171 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jul 5, 1984

It has also been held that while fraud may be established by circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be so strong and well connected as to clearly show fraud. Stringer v. … The transfer would not have been fraudulent unless an inadequate consideration was established.

Staci & Timothy Aslakson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services & Minor Children

637 S.W.3d 311 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 17, 2021

The court set the goal of the case as reunification and established supervised visitation for both parents. … Moreover, the ICWA sets forth more stringent standards for termination of parental rights: testimony of qualified expert witnesses and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the continued custody of the child by the parent

Grosso v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

521 S.W.3d 519 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 10, 2017

Ray, he has followed that with the qualifier “for now.” … The court, however, does not have to determine that every factor considered be established by clear and convincing evidence. Spencer v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 96, at 5–6, 426 S.W.3d 494, 498.

Montemayor v. Rosen

474 S.W.3d 114 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 21, 2015

Rosen testified that he did not take M.R. with him when he left Montemayor because he was concerned about the legal ramifications of not having had his paternity formally established. … In addition, he testified that he had kept M.R.’s immunizations up to date, while Montemayor had wanted to delay them.

City of Conway and Arkansas Municipal League Workers' Compensation Trust v. Jessie Ellis

2025 Ark. App. 339 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 28, 2025

Taylor stated further that she is not qualified to test 4 for cognitive defects and is not qualified to provide an opinion on whether Ellis had suffered a traumatic brain … Morse’s testimony that Yousey suffered a brain injury, clearly establish that Yousey did, in fact, suffer a compensable injury to his brain.

Phillips v. Union Pacific Railroad

89 Ark. App. 223 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 26, 2005

the Railroad agreed to apportion settlement funds in the amount of $9000 to Phillips’s account with the Federal Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), which would entitle Phillips to additional service credits allowing him to qualify … We do not reverse a judgment entered by a circuit court after a bench trial unless we determine that the court erred as a matter of law or we decide that its findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

Duncan v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

2014 Ark. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 24, 2014

When they came into care none of the children’s immunizations were up to date, they had not had any recent medical appointments, and they needed extensive dental work. … We hold that termination based on this speculation is clearly erroneous.

Fox v. Glassing

2011 Ark. App. 633 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 26, 2011

Glassing has a substance-abuse problem, which claims endangers J.F. he | ^Evidence presented at trial established that Ms. … We will not reverse the trial court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous, Ford v.

Parker v. Atlantic Research Corp.

87 Ark. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 30, 2004

An injury does not have to be accidental in order to qualify as an aggravation/new injury; it must, however, fall within one of the definitions of a compensable injury as set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § ll-9-102(4)(A). … An administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute or its own rules will not be overturned unless it is clearly wrong. Id.

Graftenreed v. Seabaugh

100 Ark. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 28, 2007

There is a decided tendency to permit the fact-finder to hear the testimony ofpersons having superior knowledge in the given field, unless they are clearly lacking in training and experience. Id. … When there is evidence to establish a causal connection between the negligence of the defendant and the damage, it is proper for the case to go to the jury. Id.

Amanda Harris v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

2022 Ark. App. 499 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 7, 2022

The court noted that the case had been put off a long time, hoping that family members would qualify to take the children, but they did not. … The appellate inquiry is whether the circuit court’s finding that the disputed fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. Id.

Greenfield Seed Co. v. Bland

18 Ark. App. 48 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 4, 1986

Evidence established that Cotner had paid all repair bills relating to the defects. … The evidence in the instant case clearly established that red rice could not be detected in a growing field until the rice plant started to flag.

Harrison v. Benton State Bank

6 Ark. App. 355 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 17, 1982

On these facts, we cannot say the chancellor was clearly erroneous in finding Harrison mentally competent when he signed Elmore’s bond. … Finally, Harrison argues that the bond was not enforceable because it was not accompanied with qualifying affidavits, and it was not supported by consideration.

Dundee v. Horton

477 S.W.3d 558 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 2, 2015

There is a decided tendency to permit the fact-finder to hear the testimony of persons having superior knowledge in the given field, unless they are clearly lacking in training and experience. … To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached a standard of care, that damages were sustained, and that the defendant’s actions were a proximate cause of those damages