Case law

Cutright v. State

97 Ark. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 6, 2006

(ii) The extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the child as established by testimony of a qualified expert witness. … The burden of establishing the existence of good cause not to follow the order of preferences established in subsection (b) shall be on the party urging that the preferences not be followed. (Emphasis added.)

Foster v. Foster

472 S.W.3d 151 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 30, 2015

The court’s decree recognized this by establishing a plan that initially provided Leah with full support that slowly tapered off over time. … It was clearly designed to maintain the status quo so that Ms. Foster may continue to stay at home with her children.

Bobby Kellensworth v. State of Arkansas

600 S.W.3d 622 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 22, 2020

Hedges, who qualified as an expert without objection, received a degree in chemistry with a minor in biology. … The circuit court found, and we agree, that the actual address number was irrelevant to the State’s clearly establishing at trial that Kellensworth was physically occupying the house where the controlled drug buys occurred

Victoria Allen, Tina Pankey, and Donald Long v. Jesse Allen

2021 Ark. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 26, 2021

Donald’s attorney argued that a putative father has standing to intervene in a divorce action to seek the establishment of paternity so long as it is in the child’s best interest. … Child-custody matters are reviewed de novo on appeal, but the circuit court’s findings are not reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. Janjam v. Rajeshwari, 2020 Ark. App. 448, 611 S.W.3d 202.

Sheila King v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

2022 Ark. App. 356 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 28, 2022

Without establishing this causal relationship, “evidence that shows only the existence of community or family . . . substance abuse or nonconforming social behavior” will not “by itself” prove beyond a reasonable doubt … In determining whether a finding is clearly erroneous, we give due deference to the circuit court’s opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility. Bryant v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2018 Ark.

Williams v. Nesbitt

95 Ark. App. 79 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 19, 2006

In an order establishing paternity that was filed for record on December 10, 2002, Mickey Nesbitt was found to have a weekly net income of $1086.00. … A trial court’s ruling on child-support issues is reviewed de novo by this court, and the trial court’s findings are not disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. Montgomery v.

Drewry v. Drewry

3 Ark. App. 97 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 21, 1981

The Arkansas General Assembly expressed its concern over the difficulty fathers had in obtaining custody notwithstanding that, in many instances, they are more qualified to care for children than mothers. … The only medical evidence offered in this case concerned the temporary order establishing the weekly divided custody award. There was no expert testimony or other evidence regarding the six month divided custody award.

Stacy Lewis v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

2025 Ark. App. 209 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 9, 2025

On May 22, 2024, the court held a hearing regarding the paternity of MC4, and DNA test results established that Lamarquis Watson is MC4’s father. … Stacy was making reasonable efforts toward achieving the goals established in the case plan, and reunification remained the goal.

X.T. v. M.M.

2010 Ark. App. 556 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 1, 2010

The Court in Lehr explained that what a putative father has is not an established right but instead an 17inchoate one: the putative father has an opportunity to establish parental rights by performing parental duties. … In addition to her failure to supervise, appellant’s mother affirmatively permitted appellant to drive the family car, with the pregnant L.G. as a passenger, before appellant had qualified for his driving permit.

In Re Guardianship of Kathryn Grace Kennedy, an Incapacitated Person, Dan Krotzer v. Esther Julianne McDaniel

603 S.W.3d 551 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 13, 2020

That statute provides in pertinent part that “[a]ny person may file a petition for the appointment of himself or herself or some other qualified person as guardian of an incapacitated person.” … Krotzer has also failed to establish that his interest in Kennedy’s well-being was not adequately represented by McDaniel.

K.C. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2010 Ark. App. 353 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 28, 2010

After summarizing the long history it had with Green and her children, the court identified one of the main issues as whether K.C., based on her mental deficiency, would ever be a “minimally qualified parent.” … DHS concedes that this element has been established based upon a strict construction of Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(18)(B).

Hanna v. State

2009 Ark. App. 809 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 2, 2009

When cross-examined by the State, he was clearly evasive, again asserting that he was “just not able to work.” … The record does not reflect when Hanna qualified for SSI, which is not income for child-support purposes.

Fureigh v. Horn

434 S.W.3d 390 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 16, 2014

A qualified or conditional privilege may arise when a common interest is involved and 3 Mr. … If the utterances go outside the bounds of reason and purpose for making the statements, the immunity can be lost. Id. (citing Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Felton, 276 Ark. 304, 634 S.W.2d 135 (1982)).

Trucker's Exchange, Inc. v. Border City Foods, Inc.

67 Ark. App. 231 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 8, 1999

or trade in which they are engaged or of which they are or should be aware give particular meaning to and supplement or qualify terms of an agreement. (4) The express terms of an agreement and an applicable course of dealing … Clearly, a driver is not under the same obligation to inspect the cargo when it is shipped under seal.

D.B.&J. Holden Farms Ltd. Partnership v. Arkansas State Highway Commission

93 Ark. App. 202 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 30, 2005

The burden of proof in establishing jury misconduct is on the moving party. Id. … stated in Breitenberg: The fact that the jury returned a verdict in about eight minutes after having the case submitted to them does not indicate to us that Beach did not receive a fair trial when the issues of fact were so clearly

Curis Pharmacy (Sentrix Pharmacy and Discount, Llc), Os02705; And Kenneth Zielinski, Pd10077 v. Arkansas State Board of Pharmacy

2021 Ark. App. 500 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 8, 2021

You are qualified for a non-narcotic topical pain cream which is covered 100% by workman’s compensation. … The script itself says that the claimants “are qualified for a non-narcotic topical pain cream which is covered 100% by workman’s compensation.”

Hankins v. Austin

2012 Ark. App. 641 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 7, 2012

The trial court found that Sally had actual and apparent authority from Willis to complete the check and that the check therefore did not qualify as an “altered” instrument. … Sally signed a document at the hospital establishing herself as Willis’s primary care person, and Willis was thereafter forced to depend on Sally for every need.

Ludrick v. State

381 S.W.3d 87 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 26, 2011

Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-10-127 (Repl. 2010) authorizes and directs the Administrative Office of the Courts to establish a program to facilitate the use of interpreters and translators in all state and local courts … Joel’s qualifications and believed she was no longer qualified to be a non-eerti-fied interpreter. Mr.

McKenzie v. Moore

453 S.W.3d 686 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 14, 2015

Moore also testified that she was the trustee of a trust that was established by her late husband for his daughters’ benefit. … “Something more must be shown to qualify as standing in loco parentis.” Id. at 535, 867 S.W.2d at 456.

Rager v. Turley

68 Ark. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 1, 1999

Appellants’ contention that appellee bore the burden of establishing Joshua’s paternity is simply incorrect; that burden remained with Joshua. … In order to qualify as a beneficiary of the wrongful-death settlement, Joshua was required to prove that he is Thomas’s child; this, he did not do.