Case law

Anita Defell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

2022 Ark. App. 27 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 19, 2022

Further, Defell testified that she qualified for Arkansas Medicaid to attend drug rehab. … Moreover, Defell’s residence had always been an issue throughout the case and was never established with any certainty.

Mai Htoo v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

2026 Ark. App. 262 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 29, 2026

Code Ann. § 9-35- 7 degree of proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established. Mayer v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. … Accordingly, the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that DHS proved the subsequent-factors ground.

Stutte v. State

432 S.W.3d 661 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2014

The circumstances and the offenses involved here clearly distinguish this case from Butler. … App. 139 public roadway as a safety hazard) do not qualify as “exigent circumstances” for purposes of doing away with the requirement of a warrant before entry. Norris, supra.

Padilla v. Archer

2011 Ark. App. 746 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 7, 2011

Bentley had not been qualified as an expert. We hold that the circuit court did not err in ruling that Dr. … Flye also established that he was familiar with the standard of care in similar medical communities. He testified that he grew up in a town of similar size and that he receives patients from similar medical communities.

Sherry Henson and Clarence Henson v. Kandice Brumble

2021 Ark. App. 130 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 17, 2021

Brumble requested that a visitation schedule be established and a court date set to review the visitation with the ultimate goal being termination of the guardianship and return of KH’s custody to her. … did not meet the requirements for the natural- parent preference as guardian under Arkansas Code Annotated section 28-65-204(a) (Repl. 2012), which provides that “[t]he parents of an unmarried minor, or either of them, if qualified

Adams v. Moody

2009 Ark. App. 474 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 17, 2009

The Adamses assert that the proof that their dwelling did not comport with FHA regulations was incompetent because Moody was not qualified to so opine. … When there is a default judgment entered in, for instance, a personal injury case, liability is deemed established and only damages need be proven.

Prock v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance

99 Ark. App. 381 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Aug 29, 2007

Summary judgment should be granted only when there are clearly no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Riverdale Dev. Co. v. Ruffin Bldg. Sys. … We have established as a guideline of contract interpretation that the different clauses of a contract must be read together and that the contract should be construed so that all parts harmonize.

Tarkington v. State

2010 Ark. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 30, 2010

Craig, 497 U.S. 836 , 110 S.Ct. 3157 , 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990), the Supreme Court qualified this guarantee by holding that the right to a face-to-face meeting with witnesses against the defendant at trial may be satisfied … Clearly, the trial court was applying the limitation on appellant’s confrontation right permitted by Maryland, supra, without the prosecutor having established the facts prerequisite for this limitation’s application.

Ritchie Grocery v. Glass

70 Ark. App. 222 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 10, 2000

Van Guilder is a trained professional who was qualified to recognize a flat affect and give an opinion as to its presence. … Not only was Ritchie’s testimony regarding the number of times that Glass actually visited the store not clearly inconsistent with what Glass had reported, Dr.

Roberts Contracting Co. v. Valentine-Wooten Road PubLic Facility Board

2009 Ark. App. 437 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 27, 2009

Standard of review |7In civil bench trials, the standard of review on appeal is whether the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against a preponderance of the evidence. Rooke v. … VWR has not appealed from the trial court's ruling on its failure to establish actual damages.

Kristy Schneider and Erik Schneider v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child

2020 Ark. App. 455 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 30, 2020

Code Ann. § 9-27-325(h)(2)(A)(ii). 15 erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.5 A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support … We cannot say that this finding is clearly erroneous. Appellants also contend that Dr.

Christopher Weatherly and Destiny Weatherly v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

2026 Ark. App. 136 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 25, 2026

And she had not been living in the camper long enough for it to qualify as stable housing. … Clear and convincing evidence is defined as that degree of proof that will produce in the fact-finder a 5 firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established.

Justin Roe & Rjx Enterprises, LLC v. Theodore Somach

699 S.W.3d 749 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 30, 2024

The answer was clearly signed “Respectfully Submitted Pro Se, Justin Roe, Defendant.” … RJX does not, however, establish that any of the grounds for setting aside the default judgment set forth in Rule 55(c) exist.

M & M Bonding Co. v. State

59 Ark. App. 228 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 3, 1997

Fourth, appellant asserts that the trial court’s finding that appellant was properly served with notice of the bond-forfeiture hearing was clearly erroneous. … A surety bond is posted by qualified individuals to insure the appearance of a criminal defendant at subsequent hearings. The surety bond itself is considered adequate security.

Christina Morris v. Chad Morris

2026 Ark. App. 52 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 28, 2026

Childers’s conclusions and was not qualified to interpret Dr. Childers’s tests. … Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous (clearly against the preponderance of the evidence), and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the

Thomas v. Sharon

2013 Ark. App. 305 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 8, 2013

for medical injury, when the asserted negligence does not lie within the jury’s comprehension as a matter of common knowledge, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving by means of expert testimony provided only by a qualified … The law requires more than a mere possibility that certain injuries resulted from negligence; rather, a reasonable probability must be established. Id.

Hoey v. State

519 S.W.3d 745 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2017

Special Agent Corwin Battle of the Arkansas State Police Inwas qualified as an expert witness in computer forensics and mobile-device forensics. … The trial court ruled that a proper foundation had been laid to establish that the phone belonged to Hoey, that he had access to it, and that he had possession of it.

Entergy Arkansas, LLC; And Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General v. Arkansas Public Service Commission

2021 Ark. App. 506 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 15, 2021

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the “Commission”) to delay judicial review. 12 In Allegheny Defense Project, the Commission entered a tolling order that expressly qualified its grant of rehearing as … The plethora of unresolved substantive issues in this docket as well as the continuation of rehearing petitions filed subsequent to this appeal clearly demonstrate the necessity and importance of an order being final prior

Lawson v. State

74 Ark. App. 257 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 20, 2001

We reverse only if the denial is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id. … The reviewing court will not reverse the denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id.

Thompson v. State

461 S.W.3d 368 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 29, 2015

But Thompson was charged with rape, not violating a minor, and the rape-shield statute clearly applies to a rape charge. … There, the jury commissioners simply went down the list of qualified electors of the county and selected a jury panel from among individuals with whom they were personally acquainted, and because the commissioners were