Case law

Mullinax v. State

53 Ark. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 1, 1996

reviewing a trial court’s decision to deny an appellant’s motion to suppress, this Court makes an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances and will reverse the trial court’s ruling only if it is clearly … In Camp, we noted the importance of qualified drivers and safe vehicles using the highways and that we were not aware of a less intrusive means of making that determination.

Ozark Mountain Reg'l Pub. Water Auth. v. Arkansas Attorney General

598 S.W.3d 864 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 18, 2020

Ozark argued that Act 197 does not apply to it because it does not qualify under Act 197’s definition of “water system.” … Ozark asserts that Act 197 does not apply to it because it does not qualify as a water system as defined in Act 197.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stotts

74 Ark. App. 428 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jul 5, 2001

Objective medical evidence is necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury but not essential to establish the causal relationship between the injury and work-related accident. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. … 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.

Hatch v. Hatch

2009 Ark. App. 337 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 29, 2009

He stated that he initially drew workers’ compensation benefits; used vacation, sick, and catastrophic leave for a year and a half; and after qualifying “for early retirement, namely disability retirement, from Game and Fish … A colloquy between the court and the parties' attorneys established that APERS administered the plan for Game and Fish employees. 2 . Appellee testified that these benefits were retroactive to April 2003.

Brittany Pelayo v. Wesley Sims

600 S.W.3d 114 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 22, 2020

He believes Brittany takes T.W.S. to the doctor for “minor stuff,” and he thinks antibiotics harm the immune system—so there have been disagreements about the use of prescribed medications for T.W.S.. … In reviewing child-custody cases, we consider the evidence de novo but will not reverse a circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the 10

William Hoover v. State of Arkansas

2026 Ark. App. 67 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 4, 2026

understanding and did not move to dismiss or otherwise challenge the amended information. 3  The State began its case-in-chief with testimony from Trooper Earls, who established … The State moved to qualify Williams as an expert in forensic chemistry and narcotics analysis, which the circuit court granted.

Ozark Gas Transmission System ex rel. Ozark Gas Pipeline Corp. v. McCormick

10 Ark. App. 210 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 4, 1984

Once the landowner or his qualified expert witness has expressed his opinion as to fair market values, the burden shifts to the condemnor to establish by cross -examination that the landowner or expert witness has no logical … However, the fact that appellees still had limited use of appellant’s strip and full use of the 14 acres beyond the strip was clearly made to the jury by appellant’s counsel.

Miller v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

525 S.W.3d 48 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 21, 2017

(female) was behind on all of her immunizations. The affidavit further revealed that after the seventy-two-hour hold had been placed on D.C. … Here, the trial court clearly considered the adoptability prong.

Don Randall Jackson (Deceased) v. Smiley Sawmill, LLC; And Technology Insurance Co.

638 S.W.3d 11 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 10, 2021

An employer who has secured for its employees the benefits of workers’ compensation is immune from liability for damages in a tort action brought by an injured employee. Truman Arnold Co. v. Miller Cnty. Cir. … The “mandate rule” is a subset of the law-of-the-case doctrine, which provides that the decision of an appellate court establishes the law of the case for the trial court upon remand and for the appellate court itself

Jackson v. Pitts

93 Ark. App. 466 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 14, 2005

In bench trials, the standard of review on appeal is whether the judge’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Found. Telecomms., Inc. v. … The testimony of the parties in this case clearly shows a relationship between appellant Jackson and Moore sufficient to establish liability for trespass and destruction of timber by a preponderance of the evidence.

Thomas v. Meadors

527 S.W.3d 724 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 6, 2017

But the inquiry on appeal is not whether Thomas established a prima facie case of medical negligence but whether Meadors established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in her motion. … The expert testimony cited by Thomas fails to clearly articulate that Meadors’s negligence was the proximate cause of Mr. Thomas’s death; instead, Dr. Beacham opined that Mr.

Duncan v. State

38 Ark. App. 47 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 15, 1992

The fact that parts were stolen from the stripped vehicle was clearly established, as was their value. … Appellant next contends that the trial court abused its discretion in holding that Bauer was qualified to testify as an expert witness. We do not agree.

McDonald v. State

92 Ark. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 22, 2005

The trial court’s finding will not be set aside unless it is found to be clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … In so doing, it clearly explained the factors upon which its decision was based: Although the principle that limits a search incident to a lawful custodial arrest may be stated clearly enough, courts have discovered the principle

John Krieger v. State of Arkansas

655 S.W.3d 321 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 9, 2022

Krieger also signed a release, which was signed by the polygraph examiner, wherein Krieger agreed to “voluntarily, without duress, coercion, promise, reward or immunity, submit to examination by the Voice Stress Analysis … On this record, we conclude that the trial court’s decision to admit the stipulated-to CVSA result was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

Kiser v. State

487 S.W.3d 374 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 6, 2016

Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof that will produce in the trier of fact a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established. Z.T., supra. … Also in 1999, the legislature created EJJ, which allows juvenile courts to maintain jurisdiction over qualifying, more serious juvenile offenders until age twenty-one.

Hoay v. State

75 Ark. App. 103 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 26, 2001

probable cause, even if the supreme court later determines that the information did not establish the requisite probable cause to search. … However, it is my opinion that the acknowledged Fourth Amendment violation in Greene County cannot be immunized by merely passing it along to Clay County.

Southerland v. Southerland

75 Ark. App. 386 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 7, 2001

He stated that in 1996 or 1997, United Medical adopted a qualified stock-option plan whereby certain key employees were entitled to receive stock options subject to a vesting period; that when United Medical decided to sell … Only the key employees that possessed the agreements received a lump-sum payment from Len Care, and the payment was clearly tied to the stock-option agreements and calculated as if those employees held shares.

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. First National Bank of Crossett

500 S.W.3d 188 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 14, 2016

However, the retail installment contracts clearly reflect that the contracts were between Murphy as the buyer and Crossett Ford as the seller of the vehicles. … Thus, FNBC is incorrect that Murphy and/or FMCC would be prevented from qualifying as a buyer in the ordinary course of business for that reason.

Mark Cowan v. Rebecca Cowan

2026 Ark. App. 206 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 1, 2026

However, the record does not establish the specific amounts withheld for taxes or contributed to Mark’s retirement accounts. … Thus, a bonus need not be vested or paid at the time of the divorce hearing to qualify as marital property if it was earned during the marriage.

Mike Atkinson, Special Administrator of the Estate of Virginia L. Atkinson v. Parkway Health Center, Inc.

2026 Ark. App. 208 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 1, 2026

At trial, the appellees objected to the court informing the jury that Nurse Hewston had been qualified as an expert witness. … Even if appellees stipulated that Nurse Hewston was qualified to give an opinion as to the requisite standard of care, she did not do so.