Case law

Billy K. Roberts, Kelly L. Roberts, Holiday Island Dev. Corp. v. Holiday Island Suburban Improvement Dist. 1

559 S.W.3d 269 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 5, 2018

Are HISID's additional requirements to qualify as a nominee for commissioner or to vote invalid? These issues relate to the process involved in the nomination and election of successor commissioners. … state or federal, in the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, and financing of any of the facilities, works, or operations authorized by this subchapter or as to the performance of any of its functions; (3) Establish

Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. v. Beadles Enterprises, Inc.

92 Ark. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 12, 2005

parties, which itself was based on double-hearsay (Wayne Sr.’s statements regarding Wayne Jr.’s hearsay statements about the IBP call) hardly constitutes the type of necessary reliability or trustworthiness required to qualify … Clearly, these documents do not prove what IBP knew, when it knew it, or why it rejected the shipment of hogs.

ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC., AND ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. v. SUSAN ALLEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX of the ESTATE OF WADE WALTERS

2021 Ark. App. 71 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 17, 2021

The circuit courts also alternatively ruled that “Entergy waived work product immunity and 9 attorney-client privilege when it distributed the conclusions of the first root … Again, we disagree. 18  Whether the circuit court’s discovery order qualifies as a final judgment for purposes of collateral estoppel appears to be a matter of first

Smith v. Heather Manor Care Center, Inc.

2012 Ark. App. 584 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 24, 2012

Based on all the circumstances before the circuit |12court at the Batson hearing, we cannot say that the court’s refusal to find a Batson violation was clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence … Morton testified that the problem referred to was that some |14people were admitting their parents to nursing homes under the false assertion that the parents would qualify for Medicaid.

Tri-Eagle Enterprises v. Regions Bank

2010 Ark. App. 64 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 20, 2010

The circuit court excluded Wojcik’s and Woody’s testimony, based on Regions’s arguments that the experts were not qualified and their opinions were unreliable. … Clearly, the arguments relate to Tri-Eagle’s defense and counterclaims for excess interest payments, which were distinct aspects of the case below.

Garis v. Massey

270 Ark. 646 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 8, 1980

In the Federal Rule the words “If elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination” appear between ‘admitted’ and ‘but’. … We cannot say the Chancellor’s finding was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Newberry v. McClaren, 262 Ark. 735 , 575 S.W. 2d 438 (1978). We therefore affirm.

Joy Wadley, Administratrix of the Estate of Farris Eugene Parliment v. Bobby Hatton and Wanda Hatton

689 S.W.3d 691 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 8, 2024

The trial court also established the priority of the liens. … The September 7 deficiency judgment qualifies as a judgment.

Woodward v. State

16 Ark. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 25, 1985

This distinction is most clearly demonstrated in United States v. Traylor, 656 F.2d 1326 (1981). … The first would have told the jury that the testimony of an informer who provides evidence for immunity from punishment must be examined with greater care than that of the other witnesses.

Dickson v. Young

79 Ark. App. 241 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 2, 2002

The supreme court later noted, however, that “an honest claimant upon being asked about his intent, unless previously warned, might not think to qualify his answer so as to claim what he considered his own, but would state … Metropolitan Trust Co., 254 Ark. 1002 , 498 S.W.2d 2 (1973), the supreme court clearly held that an admission of no intent to take another’s land was not fatal to an adverse possessor’s claim in a mistaken boundary context

Llewellyn v. State

4 Ark. App. 326 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 31, 1982

The record clearly reflects that the supervisor testified concerning factual findings of another chemist, whose findings were a direct result of the investigation of criminal charges filed against appellant. … In an extensive, well-reasoned opinion, the appellate court held the chemist’s reports were hearsay and were ineligible to qualify for any exception to the hearsay rule.

John Gibson Auto Sales, Inc. v. Direct Insurance Co.

97 Ark. App. 192 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 20, 2006

Clearly appellee was proposing that Ark. Code Ann. § 23-89-304 (b) excludes an automobile dealer that holds a lien on a vehicle from receiving notice of the cancellation of a policy on which it is a loss payee. … Sometimes though, people do not qualify for bank loans. Sometimes people are considered too high a risk for a bank to loan money to them.

Leach v. State

504 S.W.3d 668 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 26, 2016

Clear and convincing evidence is the degree of proof that will produce in the trier of fact a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established. Neal v. State, 2010 Ark. … Grundy also qualified that statement with the additional comment that the adolescent brain is “prone to impulsivity and poorly-planned behaviors and brain development.”3 While perhaps not factually clearly erroneous, this

Knight v. State

62 Ark. App. 230 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 24, 1998

This falls short of establishing a foundation upon which to make a guarantee. … Regardless of whether there was an objection, the statements of the prosecutor do not qualify as competent evidence upon which to base an affirmance.

Baker v. Certain Lands in Independence County

19 Ark. App. 253 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 26, 1986

The immunity of the state and its arms is therefore not in issue. Parker v. Moore, 222 Ark. 811 , 262 S.W.2d 891 (1953). … The court noted in Koonce that there is no statute establishing a period directly applicable to this principle, but considered by analogy Ark. Stat.

Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance v. Pettie

54 Ark. App. 79 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 26, 1996

App. 9 , 832 S.W.2d 513 (1992), holds that supervisory as well as non-supervisory employees are immune from suit for negligence in failing to provide a safe place to work. … Appellant claims that the facts established in appellee’s deposition (which was made a part of the evidence presented to the trial court) clearly show that the truck he was occupying when the accident occurred was furnished

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

2014 Ark. App. 366 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 4, 2014

DHS maintained contact and determined that appellant and the mother had not ensured that TF was receiving immunizations or having appropriate follow-up medical care. … The appellate inquiry is whether the trial court’s finding that the disputed fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. J.T. v. Ark.

Coatney v. Coatney

2010 Ark. App. 262 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 17, 2010

The trial court ordered the property to be sold and the proceeds equally divided, finding that the evidence did not establish either the value of the property without the improvements or the value of the improvements. … With regard to these funds, Larry testified that his mother gave him the money to hold so that his mother would qualify for Medicare.

McClanahan v. State

2009 Ark. App. 493 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 24, 2009

She was charged with abuse of a corpse but moved for a directed verdict, asserting that there was insufficient evidence to establish that she physically mistreated the corpse of her stillborn child. Id. … However, the question remains whether the submerging of the body can qualify as a continuing-course-of-conduct crime that will toll the three-year statute of limitation.

Graham v. State

2012 Ark. App. 90 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 25, 2012

Moreover, the form clearly indicates that Graham understood all of his rights and that Graham did not want an additional test at his own expense. … The plain wording of the statutory scheme indicates that the legislature intended to establish the alcohol concentration by approved tests, which the model instruction references.

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Bass

519 S.W.3d 336 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 15, 2017

We will not reverse a finding of civil contempt unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Balcom, supra. … Clearly, the NAACP’s subsequent conduct in 2012, 2013, and 2014, that called the Branch’s legitimacy into question, violated the November 4, 2011 order.