Case law

Christian-Holderfield v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2011 Ark. App. 534 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 14, 2011

Additionally, neither child had received any immunizations, nor had they been seen by a physician. At the adjudication hearing in August 2006, Ms. … The court, however, does not have to determine that every factor considered be established by clear and convincing evidence. Welch, supra.

Oden Optical Co. v. Optique Du Mond, Ltd.

268 Ark. 1105 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 23, 1980

The principle that a court should not exercise its jurisdiction when the defendant’s presence in the geographical jurisdiction was procured by trickery is established in Arkansas. Robinson v. … serve the process invited or inveigled the presence of the prospective defendant, and like the New York Supreme Court, we have found no case which strikes down the process when the initiation of the recipient’s presence was clearly

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

Pacheco-Alvarez v. State

540 S.W.3d 692 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 13, 2017

Introduction of the actual controlled substance is not essential if a qualified person has analyzed it and found it to be the substance on which the charge was based. Parker v. … The fact she told a completely different story when she testified at trial merely made the issue one of credibility, and the jury clearly credited her statement in the video over her trial testimony. Affirmed.

Clark v. State

26 Ark. App. 268 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 1, 1989

Williams’s degree is in sociology rather than physics or engineering, he was not qualified to testify about his reconstruction of the accident. … He then stated that he had been qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction in several Arkansas courts and in the federal courts of both Arkansas and Texas.

Kildow v. Baldwin Piano & Organ

58 Ark. App. 194 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1997

It is clear to us that reasonable minds could not agree that appellant’s testimony does not establish that her job did involve swift or quick motion. … Additionally, basic principles of administrative law mandate that we give some deference to an agency’s construction of statutes, and we view the Commission’s construction as persuasive, unless it is clearly wrong. Ark.

Carla Muruaga-Atkins; Carol Ann Martin; Laura Martin, Individually; Laura Martin, as Mother and Next Friend of Two Unemancipated Minor Children; Caitlyn Peterson, Individually; Caitlyn Peterson, as Mother and Next Friend of Three Unemancipated Minor Children; And Kathryn Ahlefeld v. Melanie Foster; Forest Roberts; Kathryn Clark; Christie Waggoner; Lillian Van Houten; Sawney Huckabay; And Allen Family Farm, Inc., an Arkansas Non-Profit Corporation

2026 Ark. App. 336 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 20, 2026

The membership rules of 1984, 1985, 1998 and 2011 have been adopted by acquiescence and those bylaws established valid membership rules, including who was a member qualified to vote on the decision to list the … Following a bench trial, our standard of review asks whether the circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. AgriFund, LLC v.

Keller v. L. A. Darling Fixtures

40 Ark. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 2, 1992

the statutory language this Court has indicated that “objective conditions or symptoms” have a broad meaning, including “symptoms of pain, and anguish, such as weakness, pallor . . . sickness, nausea, expressions of pain clearly … The Nebraska court said that “symptoms of pain; and anguish, such as weakness, pallor, faintness, sickness, nausea, expressions of pain clearly involuntary, or any other symptoms indicating a deleterious change in the bodily

Allen v. Allen

99 Ark. App. 292 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 20, 2007

Said retirement shall be divided pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. … Thus, we agree with appellant that the trial court clearly erred in its decision. The decree erroneously recited June 24, 2004, as the date of the divorce.

Givens v. State

42 Ark. App. 173 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 23, 1993

Here, the appellant clearly did not meet his burden of proof. … From these facts we conclude the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case, but even if he had done so, the State clearly had a racially neutral reason for challenging Mr. Austin.

Fisher v. Boling

575 S.W.3d 592 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 17, 2019

We must therefore do the best we can to discern his intent and do so in accordance with established legal principles. See Murphy v. … And that is why I have turned to the established presumptions.

Fulkerson v. Van Buren

60 Ark. App. 257 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 11, 1998

Because I do not believe the trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, I would affirm. … Third, it appears to me that appellee established seven years of possession with all the qualifying factors before appellant ever asserted his ownership. I would affirm. Stroud, J. joins in this dissent.

Robert Eugene Dyas v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 538 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 2, 2020

We will not reverse the circuit court’s decision to revoke unless it is clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. E.g., Ferguson v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 4, at 3, 479 S.W.3d 588, 590. … The circuit court also acted within its discretion when it resentenced Dyas to ten years’ imprisonment in the ADC after he did not qualify for the ACC.

Jack Bennett and Cindy Bennett v. Wiley B. Ballow

653 S.W.3d 357 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 7, 2022

The test on review is a clearly erroneous standard (i.e., whether this court can say that the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous). Id. … Further, constructive fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence, which “is a degree of proof that produces in the finder of fact a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established.”

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

562 S.W.3d 883 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 17, 2018

Still, Hunter argues that this shortcoming qualifies as the third exception to the contemporaneous-objection *887 requirement set forth in Wicks v. State , 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980). … Based on these circumstances, the circuit court did not clearly err in finding there was little likelihood that services would result in reunification.

Breslau v. McAlister

72 Ark. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 13, 2000

The Court: You need to ask him if he feels qualified in that area to give an opinion on it. Dr. … Berg is qualified to give an opinion in the particular area of labor and delivery. Defense Counsel: Dr.

VANG LEE v. Mansour

104 Ark. App. 91 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 19, 2008

Clearly, appellant should have been given notice of appellee’s request to withdraw. Compare Snowden v. Riggins, 70 Ark. App. 1 , 13 S.W.3d 598 (2000). … The order granting summary judgment recites that the established case law in Bright v.

Hancock v. Tri-State Insurance

43 Ark. App. 47 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jul 7, 1993

‘Insured’ means any person or organization qualifying as an insured in the Who Is An Insured provision of the applicable coverage. … Also, the evidence clearly establishes that the named insured in this policy is the trucking company, and that both Messrs. Hancock and Videll were its employees.

Foundation Telecommunications, Inc. v. Moe Studio, Inc.

69 Ark. App. 20 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 19, 2000

The standard that we apply when we review a judgment entered by a circuit court after a bench trial is well established. … We will not reverse a trial court’s finding of fact unless it is clearly erroneous. Schueck v. Burris, 330 Ark. 780 , 957 S.W.2d 702 (1997).

McAdams v. Curnayn

96 Ark. App. 118 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 13, 2006

Appellees clearly recognized that any argument regarding proximate cause must fail because they did not present expert proof regarding causation that was stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability … What I do not understand is how the majority determined that this testimony established that appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.