Case law

Porchia Calloway v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child

644 S.W.3d 262 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 4, 2022

The court determined that Calloway, who was represented by court- appointed counsel at the hearing, did not qualify for court-appointed counsel and advised her to hire an attorney. … Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3) establishes a statutory ground for the termination of parental rights when “[a] determination has been made by a judge that there is little likelihood that services

Wright v. State

434 S.W.3d 401 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 16, 2014

It would qualify—these statements would qualify under that. And secondly, this is based on what she told him about the defendant and the car, the description of the car. A broadcast is put out. … That’s clearly testimony that he has elicited. This is—the testimony they offer that it violates the Confrontation Clause, Judge.

Vite v. Vite

2010 Ark. App. 565 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 1, 2010

In deciding this issue, the Commission followed the precedent it had established in Hunt v. Lovett, filed September 16, 1996 (E218307). Hunt v. … Nor are there any other objective findings establishing a permanent functional or anatomical loss. Acknowledging that Dr. Routsong was the treating physician who evaluated Mr.

Baker v. Daves

83 Ark. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 1, 2003

He said that the attorneys told the judge "from the table area" what the agreement was and that he could not hear anything clearly. … We think that the instant case is an example of the type of situation where a binding agreement was not established with respect to appellant.

Serio v. Copeland Holdings, LLC

521 S.W.3d 131 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 3, 2017

Copeland had previously established a business relationship with Cleburne County realtor Jim Broxson. … Prevention of performance by a government order or regulation may qualify as an 11  Cite as 2017 Ark.

Eric Carter v. State of Arkansas

598 S.W.3d 875 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 6, 2020

General assertions that counsel did not aggressively prepare for trial are not sufficient to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. … Parsons, “he would have discovered that exceptionally qualified experts could be found who would have undermined T.S. credibility to testify competently.”

Bryant v. Bryant

2009 Ark. App. 231 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 1, 2009

Clearly, the trial court's "ruling" was to defer action on appellant's request until appellee is actually notified of her deployment, when and if that event ever occurs. … In my view, neither the trial court nor the majority has established how this order is in the minor child's best interest.

Don L. Kittler, Jr. v. Entergy Arkansas, LLC

2025 Ark. App. 567 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 19, 2025

This qualifies as a “passing reference” or a “scant reference” that we rejected in Petit Jean and Consumers Utilities. … Rate Schedule No. 14 clearly explains how Kittler’s bill is calculated each month. Again, we will not advise the Commission as to how to make its findings or exercises its discretion. Consumer Utils., 86 Ark.

Hopper v. Daniel

72 Ark. App. 344 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 7, 2001

If the above-described acts by Lawrence and Hopper are not sufficient acts of hostility from which knowledge of an adverse claim can be presumed, I do not know of any evidence that would qualify. … After the chancellor decided that Hopper had failed in his attempt to establish his claim of adverse possession, he granted Hopper’s alternative prayer for partition of the land involved.

Bosquet v. State

59 Ark. App. 54 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 8, 1997

But without the requisite inquiry and findings mandated by Batson and Purkett, we have nothing to review on the crucial pretext question that is central to deciding whether discriminatory purpose has been established under … The United States Supreme Court recognized this truth in Batson when it stated: “A single invidiously discriminatory governmental act” is not “immunized by the absence of such discrimination in the making of other comparable

In the Matter of the Guardianship of Z.S., a Minor

641 S.W.3d 653 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 16, 2022

A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. … Moreover, the court stated in its order that “it is not established from where the methamphetamine was sourced.” 9 her supervised visits, and the circuit court merely considered

Warner v. State

93 Ark. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 30, 2005

The trial court held a hearing and denied appellant’s motion on the ground that K.P.’s statement qualified as an excited-utterance exception to hearsay pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 803(2). … The George court held the victim’s statements were admissible as excited utterances because “they were made at an unusually late hour following a nightmare that clearly terrified the victim.”

James Parsons v. Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc.

2022 Ark. App. 277 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 1, 2022

This is not sufficient to establish a claim for an illegal exaction. … In other words, PFH billed for services provided by its employees who were not qualified to bill Medicare for the services.

Bryant v. Arkansas Public Service Commission

54 Ark. App. 157 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 26, 1996

To clearly understand the issues presented, we must first discuss findings made by the Commission in a prior docket. … In Order No. 11, the Commission found that, with the issues to be addressed clearly identified for the first time, the scope of the proceeding was established and limited to the specific issues addressed in the audit report

Thomas Sanders v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

2019 Ark. App. 386 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 18, 2019

Because the alert establishes that the bracket will not be used again, it qualifies as a subsequent remedial measure despite the fact that it was used only once in an experimental test. … The actual testimony establishes merely that the test was initially considered a success because the bracket did what they intended it to do—stop the bolt.

Jakota Woods v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

2025 Ark. App. 587 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 3, 2025

She said that she found a thirty-day treatment program but was told by DHS that it did not qualify. She also said that she cannot afford a six-month inpatient treatment program. … Statutory grounds and a best-interest finding must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, which is the degree of proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction regarding the allegation sought to be established

Robbins v. State

80 Ark. App. 204 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 18, 2002

It is well settled that our law establishes a preference for the natural parent in third-party custody cases and that preference must prevail unless it is established that the natural parent is unfit. … Cartwright, 342 Ark. 662 , 30 S.W.3d 737 (2000) (holding that a preference in Ark.Code Ann. § 28-65-204 (Supp. 2001) is given to the natural parent if that parent is determined to be suitable and qualified by the probate

Mitchell "mitch" Wine v. Doralee Chandler and Leslie Rutledge, in Their Capacities as Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control Division of the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration and Attorney General of Arkansas, Respectively; And Public Consulting Group, Inc.

607 S.W.3d 522 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 16, 2020

The State appellees also asserted that Wine’s claims for damages against them were barred by sovereign and statutory immunity. 6  On May 30, instead of responding … We review a trial court’s factual conclusions regarding service of process under a clearly erroneous standard, but when a complaint is 6In granting the State appellees’ motion, it is unclear whether the trial court

In the Matter of the Guardianship of Km, a Minor

642 S.W.3d 275 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 9, 2022

She explained that she has custody of Kyle’s three-year-old son, OM; that KM has a “firm relationship” with both her and OM; that she was willing to do whatever was necessary to establish the guardianship; and that while … This standard of review accords greater deference to the circuit court 6 than the clearly erroneous standard.

Lonoke Exceptional Sch., Inc. v. Coffman

569 S.W.3d 378 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 13, 2019

Clearly, the record indicates that the appellee Coffman was at work and fell on his left shoulder, causing pain and, perhaps, even a limitation in his range of motion. … The only medical evidence in the record from a qualified orthopedic surgeon is an emphatic "no."