Case law

Davis v. Davis

489 S.W.3d 195 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 13, 2016

Standard of Review We review divorce cases de novo. 5 However, we will not reverse the circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. 6 Findings are clearly erroneous when the reviewing court … App. 210 We observe at the outset that the Eureka Springs business and the real-estate contract undisputedly qualified as marital property.

LINDA ROUSE, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BILLY RAY WAYMON v. JOHN WESLEY TIPPIT

Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 17, 2025

At the hearing held on August 29, the parties stipulated that Lisa and April qualified as beneficiaries under Ark. … The evidence in this case clearly reflected an emotional bond rising to the level of a parental relationship.

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

548 S.W.3d 865 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 25, 2018

On appeal, Alecia argues that the termination order should be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to establish statutory grounds for termination. We affirm. … We hold that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that DHS proved the subsequent-factors grounds under Ark.

Bennie Burks, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Oliver Lee Burks v. Hunter L. Brown, M.D., and Robert T. Emery, M.D.

2023 Ark. App. 562 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 6, 2023

First, the majority writes that the order on appeal dismissed the case because the appellant failed “to come forward with proof from a qualified expert to establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that some … Conversely, the majority qualifies the medical record as so “scant with detail” that “the exact mechanism of the injury to Oliver Burks’s aorta is unknown.”

Gillean v. State

478 S.W.3d 255 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 9, 2015

In exchange for immunity from prosecution, Stark agreed to testify against Gillean. … A defendant who is sentenced within the statutory range—and short of the maximum sentence—cannot establish prejudice. Tate v.

John James Baker v. Denise Binns Baker

678 S.W.3d 608 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 1, 2023

The burden is on the party who asserts an interest in property to establish that it is separate property not subject to division. Aldridge v. Aldridge, 28 Ark. App. 175, 177, 773 S.W.2d 103, 104 (1980). … Alimony may be awarded under proper circumstances concerning rehabilitation to either party in fixed installments for a specified period so that the payments qualify as periodic payments within the meaning of the Internal

Eric Ray Carr v. Maranda Lynn Carr

2019 Ark. App. 513 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 6, 2019

We hold that the circuit court did not clearly err in enforcing the parties’ property- settlement agreement. … We hold that the circuit court did not clearly err in its calculation.

Cariker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2011 Ark. App. 574 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 28, 2011

Deal told Laura to apply for housing, and Laura would respond that David told her she would not qualify. … These facts establish the potential for unhealthy circumstances in returning B.C. to his mother.

Lamar Outdoor Advertising v. Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department

86 Ark. App. 279 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 26, 2004

However, an administrative agency's interpretation of statutes or its own rules and regulations will not be disregarded unless clearly wrong. See ACW, Inc. v. … To establish an absence of substantial evidence to support the decision the challenging party must demonstrate that the proof before the administrative tribunal was so nearly undisputed that fair-minded persons could not

Shrader v. State

13 Ark. App. 17 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 7, 1984

In none is the zone of privacy more clearly defined than when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual’s home — a zone that finds its foots in clear and specific constitutional terms: “The right of … the fact that experience has shown that the evidence of an accomplice should be viewed with care, caution and suspicion because it comes from a tainted source and is often given in the hope or expectation of leniency or immunity

Hill v. Billups

85 Ark. App. 166 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 18, 2004

Lewis’s July 1999 deposition as a means of establishing Dr. Lewis’s qualifications in emergency medicine. … Lewis was not qualified as an expert because she did not articulate a standard of care. This is clearly an evidentiary objection.

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

576 S.W.3d 95 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 1, 2019

Muller acknowledged that the trial court had ordered an adoptive home study after the last hearing, but Muller stated that she was not qualified to conduct an adoptive home study. … s life and that B.H. was adoptable were clearly erroneous. Appellant's remaining arguments are without merit.

Mohammed v. Maverick Transportation

2025 Ark. App. 251 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 23, 2025

Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-527(c) outlines who qualifies for survivor benefits as the family of a worker who dies in the course and scope of his employment. … “Actual dependency” does not require a finding of total dependency; it may be established by showing either actual dependency or a reasonable expectancy of future support, even if no actual support has been provided.

Timmons v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2010 Ark. App. 419 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 12, 2010

A separate provision of the ICWA prohibits termination of parental rights to an Indian child “in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses … By order of October 10, 2008, Timmons’s child was adjudicated dependent-neglected as a result of environmental neglect and her mother’s abuse of drugs, and the goal of reunification was established.

Angela Davidson v. Marlon Haynes

2026 Ark. App. 330 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 20, 2026

A finding is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. … Nor did the testimony that Marlon saw MC seven times between 2019 and 2020 establish when those visits occurred or whether Angela otherwise proved a qualifying one year of significant failure to communicate.

Reichard v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2011 Ark. App. 762 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 7, 2011

The trial judge admitted the exhibit but noted that it did not establish that Reichard had been accepted or qualified. … In resolving the clearly erroneous question, we give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses. Id.

Ladarius Burnette v. State of Arkansas

625 S.W.3d 382 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 5, 2021

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. v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 282. … There may be mental health inpatient treatment facilities that defendant qualifies for and are available to him in the Juvenile Division of Circuit Court.

Coffee v. Zolliecoffer

93 Ark. App. 61 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 14, 2005

That finding is not clearly erroneous, and we must affirm. This conclusion is based on the holding of our state’s highest court, and I am bound by its reasoning. … With this pronouncement of law, we have thrown otherwise qualified parents into a subjective minefield pitting them against possibly more mature, more capable, or more affluent grandparents, siblings, or others.

Jimenez v. State

83 Ark. App. 377 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 12, 2003

As the testimony recited above clearly indicates, appellant was quite aware that she was plotting a murder, and repeatedly told Steve that she wanted him to kill both police officers. … On this record, we think appellant has failed either to establish any violation of Brady or to demonstrate that any prejudice ensued.

Capitol Life & Accident Insurance v. Phelps

76 Ark. App. 428 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 13, 2002

The chancellor found that appellant’s proof on this point was not convincing, and we cannot say that such a finding was clearly erroneous. … Facts established by the testimony of an interested witness, or one whose testimony might be biased, cannot be considered as undisputed or uncontradicted.