Case law

Thompson v. Mountain Home Good Samaritin Village

442 S.W.3d 873 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 24, 2014

carpentry with light duty afforded him with his employer, if he cannot continue in this work, the combination of factors cited above will eliminate him from all jobs for which he might otherwise be qualified … However, the Commission found that Thompson’s testimony that continual back pain had clearly curtailed his previous activities was corroborated by the testimony of Magee, Hall, and Koop.

Harris v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child

560 S.W.3d 778 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 19, 2018

DHS must prove allegations by clear and convincing evidence, which is proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction that the allegation has been established. Cotton v. Ark. … "Auxiliary aids and services" are defined as (A) qualified interpreters or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments; (B) qualified readers, taped texts

Kenneth Johnson v. Land O' Frost, Inc.

704 S.W.3d 671 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 29, 2025

Johnson’s neck injury appears to have been clearly related to his work injury. It does not mean that he did not have some pre-existing degenerative changes, but as Dr. … Here, it contends, Johnson failed to prove the existence of such findings and thus failed to establish a compensable back injury.

Anderson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2011 Ark. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 14, 2011

The court, however, does not have to determine that every factor considered be established by clear and convincing evidence. Welch, supra. … Unfortunately, the waiting list for DDS services was two to three years, and there was no guarantee that appellant would even qualify for such services.

J&V Restaurant Supply & Refrigeration, Inc. v. Supreme Fixture Co.

76 Ark. App. 505 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 6, 2002

He said that Supreme Fixture helped J&V obtain the necessary approval which qualified it to bid on the job. … The record clearly demonstrates that J&V purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within this state, see Hanson v.

JAMES L. MAYER AND aNNA M. MAYER v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR CHILDREN

2025 Ark. App. 51 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 29, 2025

Martin Faitak, who was qualified as an expert in clinical psychology, testified that he conducts psychological evaluations for DHS and conducted an evaluation for James and Anna. … Clear and convincing evidence is defined as that degree of proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established. Posey v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Hum.

Bryant v. Arkansas Public Service Commission

57 Ark. App. 73 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 9, 1997

Docket No. 94-175 was established, AGC was granted intervenor status in the docket, and the Attorney General notified the Commission of his intent to participate in the proceedings. … The Commission found that the provisions of the Stipulation were clearly within the reasonable range of opinions and recommendations presented by the various expert witnesses and that, based upon their expert testimony, substantial

Chad Castleberry v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child

2019 Ark. App. 404 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 25, 2019

the ICWA standard that [n]o termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified … The ICWA specialist testified that since 2012, the parents had established a pattern of getting clean for a few months, relapsing, having the children taken away, Fletcher becoming pregnant, the family getting involved

James v. Walchli

535 S.W.3d 679 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 29, 2017

On April 20, 2015, Liz filed a motion for modification of order and motion to establish child support. On April 29, 2015, Lee filed a response. … For her second point of appeal, Liz contends the trial court clearly erred in failing to establish an award of child support in her favor.

Blares v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2010 Ark. App. 379 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 5, 2010

Although appellant partially complied with the ease plan and court orders, her child was clearly in serious danger of abuse if returned to her. … proffer to the record the substance of social worker’s testimony in regard to any disclosures of sexual abuse of parties’ child, mother did not preserve for appellate review issue of whether trial court erred in refusing to qualify

Bd. of Trs. of the Ark. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Garrison

576 S.W.3d 485 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 1, 2019

(d) There is hereby created and ordered to be established a fund to be designated "Revenue Reserve Fund" the ("Reserve Fund"). … Nonetheless, having deferred as the law currently requires, I still believe the board's decision is clearly wrong.

McKinney v. McKinney

94 Ark. App. 100 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 1, 2006

Appellee anticipated receiving unemployment benefits of $1000 per month and did, in fact, qualify to receive such benefits for the period between September 2003 to mid-March 2004. … Testimony at trial established that appellee had at least $133,500 in one retirement account and assets from his deceased's mother's assets.

Steve A. Baldwin, as Representative of the Joan A. Baldwin Family Trust, Agreement; The Steve A. Baldwin Family Trust; The Alton Baldwin Family, Trust Agreement; And Baldwin Enterprises v. Arkansas Department Of, Transportation

2025 Ark. App. 114 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2025

This court will not overturn an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulation unless it is clearly wrong. Nash, 370 Ark. at 351, 259 S.W.3d at 425. … Colan’s opinion that the architectural and engineering designs did not qualify as suitability studies.

Cluck v. State

91 Ark. App. 220 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 8, 2005

We hold that there was clearly no probative value in introducing the fact that Douglas was Cluck’s parole officer and that the prejudice is manifest. … Clearly this category of paraphernalia had no connection to manufacturing.

Hood ex rel. Hood v. Arkansas School Board Insurance Cooperative

35 Ark. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 5, 1991

Under these circumstances, we think the trial court clearly erred in granting the motion filed by ASBIC for summary judgment. … Code Ann. § 23-79-210 (1989), was not sufficient to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact to be tried under the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Jake Norwood v. State of Arkansas

651 S.W.3d 183 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 7, 2022

It’s clearly identifiable by Ledbetter who confiscated the drugs. Clearly identified as a package that was sealed up to be delivered to the Crime Lab. … He also contends that the State failed to establish authenticity when it did nothing more than trace the route of the envelope.

Arkansas Local Police and Fire Retirement System v. Michael Payne

2024 Ark. App. 221 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 3, 2024

This established that the operative date is the date when his application was made, not the date when LOPFI made a determination on it. That’s the real issue here. … Accordingly, Cheney and its progeny stand for the proposition that one who fulfills the statutory conditions to qualify for a benefit cannot constitutionally be divested of his “vested right” to the benefit.

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission

18 Ark. App. 260 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 10, 1986

The Commission again found that, while the theory of repression is "known," its effects cannot be measured with the degree of accuracy required by Section 73-217.5 to qualify as both a reasonably known and measurable change … The Commission's particular application of the DCF formula was clearly contrary to the testimony of the expert witnesses on both sides.

Royal v. Bypass Diesel & Wrecker, Inc.

432 S.W.3d 139 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2014

Crystal did not produce documents tending to establish that Jeremy gave her money that she would deposit into her bank account. … App. 90 Upon later learning that Crystal Royal did not qualify for benefits, [Bypass Diesel and its carrier] ceased payment.

Dickson v. Delhi Seed Co.

26 Ark. App. 83 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 23, 1988

First, it must be demonstrated that the contract was made by a non-qualifying foreign corporation which was “doing business” in the state; and second, it must be shown that the particular contract in question was made in … While the trial court may reduce the verdict to conform to the facts, we believe his factual finding that the contract reserved certain rights to the appellants’ landlords was clearly erroneous.