Case law

Holmes v. Director, Department of Workforce Services

463 S.W.3d 744 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 20, 2015

Hiner v. Dir., 61 Ark. App. 139 , 965 S.W.2d 785 (1998). … Also, the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony are matters to be resolved by the Board. Johnson v. Dir., 84 Ark. App. 349 , 141 S.W.3d 1 (2004).

Rossini v. Director, Arkansas Employee Security Department

81 Ark. App. 286 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 19, 2003

Rucker v. Price, 52 Ark. App. 126 , 915 S.W.2d 315 (1996); Perdrix-Wang v. Director, 42 Ark. App. 218 , 856 S.W.2d 636 (1993). … The findings of the Board of Review are con-elusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. Walls v. Director, 74 Ark. App. 424 , 49 S.W.3d 670 (2001).

Wanda McElroy v. Director, Division of Workforce Services

2023 Ark. App. 456 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 18, 2023

OF REVIEW [NO. 2021-BR-05581] V. … Hill v. Director, 2023 Ark. App. 418, at 2.

Keith v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs.

564 S.W.3d 296 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 7, 2018

We review the Board's findings in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and affirm the Board's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Jones v. Dir. , 2015 Ark. App. 479 , 470 S.W.3d 277 . … Compare Hubbard v. Dir. , 2015 Ark. App. 235 , 460 S.W.3d 294 ; Price v. Dir. , 2013 Ark.

Klak v. Director, Department of Workforce Services, and St. Vincent Health System

2020 Ark. App. 117 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 19, 2020

However, our function on appeal is not merely to rubber-stamp decisions arising from the Board. Thomas v. Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 468, 587 S.W.3d 612; Wilson v. Dir., 2017 Ark. … In Rivera v. Director, 2018 Ark.

Thomas v. Meadors

527 S.W.3d 724 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 6, 2017

Cash v. Lim, 322 Ark. 359, 908 S.W.2d 655 (1995). … Browning, Jason Browning, and Graham Talley; and Anderson, Murphy & Hopkins, L.L.P., by: Mark D.

Audrey Jo Rodermund v. Director, Division of Workforce Services

637 S.W.3d 291 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 17, 2021

Standard of Review This court affirms the decision of the Board when it is supported by substantial evidence. Allen v. Dir., 2014 Ark. App. 233, 434 S.W.3d 384. … Fowlkes v. Dir., 2017 Ark. App. 56, 512 S.W.3d 667. Rodermund cites Tyler v. Director, 2017 Ark.

Garcia v. State

2015 Ark. App. 673 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 18, 2015

CR-12-1865-1] V. HONORABLE WILLIAM A. … R. 4-3(k)(1). 3 Id. 4 Brown v. State, 85 Ark. App. 382, 155 S.W.3d 22 (2004). 5 Campbell v. State, 74 Ark.

Coleman v. Director, Department of Workforce Services

668 S.W.3d 540 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 17, 2023

In appeals of unemployment-compensation cases, we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board’s findings. Term v. Dir., 2015 Ark. … Bergman v. Dir., 2010 Ark. App. 729, at 6, 379 S.W.3d 625, 628.

Fowler v. State

441 S.W.3d 41 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 10, 2014

App. 9, at 1-2). 6 Woods v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 739, at 4-5, 431 S.W.3d 343, 347 (citing Richey v. State, 2013 Ark. … State. 15 However, in Hayden v.

Weisker v. Harvest Management Sub LLC

489 S.W.3d 696 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 20, 2016

Monthly rent included payment of utilities, as well as certain “board, activities, and services as described” in the contract. … See Mans v. Peoples Bank of Imboden, 340 Ark. 518, 10 S.W.3d 885 (2000); Kroger Co., supra. Affirmed. VIRDEN and BROWN, JJ., agree. The Sorey Law Firm, PLLC, by: R.

Hardin v. State

486 S.W.3d 808 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 30, 2016

Brown v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 570. … Brown, supra; R.W.G. v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 545, 444 S.W.3d 376.

Coker v. Director, Department of Workforce Services

99 Ark. App. 455 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 12, 2007

Rossini v. Director, supra. … Blackford v. Director, supra. Whether an employee’s actions constitute misconduct in connection with the work sufficient to deny unemployment benefits is a question offact for the Board. Thomas v. Director, 55 Ark.

Willis Johnson Co. v. Daniels

269 Ark. 795 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 18, 1980

City of Fort Smith v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 220 Ark. 70 , 247 S.W. 2d 474 (1952). In the recent case of Harris v. … Even if the evidence is undisputed, the drawing of inferences is for the board, not the courts. Kessler v. Industrial Commission:, 27 Wis. 2d 398 , 134 N.W. 2d 412 (1965).

Davis v. Dir.

2013 Ark. App. 515 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 18, 2013

On appeal, we review the findings of the Board in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, reversing only when the Board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Crouch v. … Ballard v. Dir., Dep’t of Workforce Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 371. Issues of credibility of the witnesses and weight to be afforded their testimony are matters for the Board to determine. Id. Ms.

Wafford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

495 S.W.3d 96 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 1, 2016

DJM Wcjs removed from Brown’s custody in April 2014 after Brown failed drug tests and refused to cooperate with DHS in a protective-services case. All three children were adjudicated dependent-neglected. … Jung v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2014 Ark.

Johnson v. Director of the Arkansas Employment Security Department & Beverly Health

84 Ark. App. 349 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 14, 2004

Rossini v. Director, supra. … Blackford v. Director, supra. Whether an employee’s actions constitute misconduct in connection with the work sufficient to deny unemployment benefits is a question of fact for the Board. Thomas v. Director, 55 Ark.

Vaughn v. State

456 S.W.3d 767 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 25, 2015

The way I understood was they were saying any evidence of aggravating circumstances showing his propensity to engage in similar conduct, and they quote Brown v. State. … Additionally, in Stover v.

Carder v. Hemstock

5 Ark. App. 115 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 26, 1982

First National Bank of Paris v. Peoples Security Bank, 1 Ark. App. 224 , 614 S.W.2d 521 (1981); Snyder v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 1 Ark. App. 92 , 613 S.W.2d 126 (1981). … Woods v. Emp. Sec. Div., supra. The weight to be given such evidence is for the Board to determine.

Van Patten v. State

16 Ark. App. 83 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 16, 1985

United States v. Hensley, 496 U.S _, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985). … The radio dispatch that he received was anonymous and it gave extremely general information about a “loud party” and a “brown Jeep.”