Case law

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.

Sahara Gonzales v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

2023 Ark. App. 444 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 4, 2023

Gonzales could not qualify for HUD assistance because she owed HUD $1600 for destruction of property in her previous house. … On this record, we cannot say that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that the children would be at risk of potential harm if returned to Gonzales.

Alcoa v. Vann

14 Ark. App. 223 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 3, 1985

The testimony clearly details Vann’s direct asbestos exposure during his 27 years with Alcoa. … In Sanyo, this Court pointed out that in order to qualify as an occupational disease, the disease must be one, the hazard of which is peculiar to the particular process or employment.

Al M. Williams v. Erma Jean Davis; The Estate of Earlee Walker; And Ricco Walker, Administrator of the Estate of Earlee Walker

625 S.W.3d 243 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 28, 2021

Simply being a former step-child does not establish an in loco parentis relationship. Moreover, the Court, after observing Mr. … “Something more must be shown to qualify as standing in loco parentis.” Id. at 435, 867 S.W.2d at 456.

Terri Simmons v. Bryan Steele

2023 Ark. App. 386 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 13, 2023

affirm.1 1 There are different statutory requirements for granting a guardianship and terminating a guardianship; namely, in creating a guardianship the court must consider whether the guardian is “qualified … Parental fitness is not a consideration in establishing a guardianship. See Fletcher v. Scorza, 2010 Ark. 64, 359 S.W.3d 413.

Britt v. State

573 S.W.3d 567 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 6, 2019

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. Id. … We review a trial court's decision to qualify a witness as an expert in a particular field under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.

Maloy v. Stuttgart Memorial Hospital

42 Ark. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 12, 1993

I think that statement clearly ignores the evidence and the law established by precedent. There is no reason to doubt that Mrs. Glover furnished the money to buy the certificates. … One view, the court said, holds that a joint account is immune from garnishment. Another view is that the entire account is subject to garnishment to pay the debt of either of the joint account owners.

Nunnenman v. Estate of Grubbs

2010 Ark. App. 75 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 27, 2010

Accordingly, Nunnenman’s assertion that the note qualified as neither a will nor a gift inter vivos is not dispositive of this case. … This was clearly a mistake of fact on the part of the majority.

Hart v. McChristian

71 Ark. App. 178 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 18, 2000

As a result, the standard for reviewing procedural irregularities in an arbitration hearing has not been established. … Appellants provide no authority supporting their argument that this federal statute provides immunity from an order of a court that presides over a case in which they are a party.

Arrow International, Inc. v. Sparks

81 Ark. App. 42 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2003

Allen did not require him to be an expert in any field other than the one in which he was unquestionably qualified, the field of medicine. Dr. … Kuykendall to establish the admissibility of the MDRs, but our review of the record indicates that the doctor’s testimony was not the sole basis for the judge’s decision.

Parks v. State

11 Ark. App. 238 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 23, 1984

No action was taken on that motion until after the jury had been qualified and sworn. … To the contrary the evidence clearly indicates that the appellant was ready, willing and able to make the sale and was merely afforded the opportunity.

Syakhasone v. State

72 Ark. App. 385 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 7, 2001

We will only reverse the trial court if its ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. See id. … Although an exact waiting period has not been established, the Mazepink court held that a time interval of two to three seconds was not sufficient to establish that officers in that case were constructively denied entry into

Ridgeway Pulpwood v. Baker

7 Ark. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 23, 1983

Baker argues that the credible evidence tends to establish that they were cutting sawlogs. Questions of credibility and the weight and sufficiency to be given evidence are matters for the Commission to determine. … Appellate courts should not set aside such a determination unless it is clearly wrong or constitutes a gross abuse of that discretion.

In Re Guardianship of Pitts

627 S.W.3d 426 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 19, 2021

. §§ 28-65-211(b)(1) and -212(b) and had failed to establish Patty’s incapacity by sworn testimony from a qualified medical professional. … This court reviews probate proceedings de novo, but we will not reverse a finding of fact by the circuit court unless it is clearly erroneous. In re Guardianship of Helton, 2020 Ark. App. 132, 594 S.W.3d 903.

Matthew Kusper v. Dr. Gregory Guisbiers

2024 Ark. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2024

Kusper clearly believes that it’s not true and that there are some ethical issues. … We have held that a circuit court does not abuse its discretion denying motions to strike when prejudice is not established, see Trujillo v. TK Martial Arts Acad., LLC, 2015 Ark.

Matthew Kusper v. Dr. Gregory Guisbiers

2024 Ark. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2024

Kusper clearly believes that it’s not true and that there are some ethical issues. … We have held that a circuit court does not abuse its discretion denying motions to strike when prejudice is not established, see Trujillo v. TK Martial Arts Acad., LLC, 2015 Ark.

Powhatan Cemetery Ass'n v. Phillips

90 Ark. App. 424 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 6, 2005

We will not reverse a trial court’s finding regarding the existence of an easement unless the finding is clearly erroneous. Id., 67 S.W.3d 598 . … Appellant’s final argument is that the trial court erred in using the doctrine of estoppel to establish the easement.

Addington v. State

2 Ark. App. 7 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 27, 1981

It may be argued that any defendant who waives his right to counsel should not have done so and that he would have been better off had he had the services of a qualified attorney. … The Supreme Court in that case held that the record was insufficient to establish the fact that following his appearance at a preliminary hearing he had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.

Beard v. Ford Motor Credit Co.

41 Ark. App. 174 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 31, 1993

Rattler was not qualified to testify as to how repossessed cars are generally sold and in particular how appellant’s car was sold. … In light of the evidence, we cannot say the trial court’s finding that the sale was commercially reasonable is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

Campbell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2013 Ark. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 13, 2013

She testified that there were families available to adopt the children and that one family in particular had been identified and qualified as an adoptive placement. According to Spencer, adoption was very likely. … We will not reverse the circuit court’s ruling unless its findings are clearly erroneous. Id., 40 S.W.3d 286 .