Case law

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission

104 Ark. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 17, 2008

An Entergy witness testified that the insurance was a legitimate expense and that it encouraged qualified individuals to serve as directors and officers. … The Commission established a ROE of 9.9%.

Tina Lewis v. Baptist Health

2023 Ark. App. 73 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 15, 2023

First, each of Lewis’s experts relied on a “national standard” in formulating their respective opinions in violation of well-established Arkansas precedent. … The circuit court then denied the motion to extend time and granted the summary- judgment motions, concluding that prior to the close of discovery, Lewis had failed to produce a qualified medical witness to opine as to

A&B Pawn Shop D/B/A Webb's Sporting Goods v. MacK's Sport Shop, Lllp, D/B/A MacK's Prairie Wings

2021 Ark. App. 498 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 8, 2021

If they have an archery tech, he is nowhere near as qualified, nor respected in this industry as or [sic] archery department manager/tech Jody Smith and tech Jody Price.” 1 During discovery … The judge’s findings are not clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Baptist Health, 2010 Ark. 358, at 24–25, 373 S.W.3d at 286 (footnote omitted and emphasis added).

Weathers v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

433 S.W.3d 271 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2014

Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction that the allegation has been established. Id. … To qualify for ADA accommodations in a DHS case, a parent must demonstrate that she has a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of her major life activities. Sowell v. Ark.

Kara Wright v. Dir.

646 S.W.3d 150 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 11, 2022

Courts are often saddled with the task of interpreting rules or statutes that, unfortunately, could have been written more clearly. … And the dual system arose only after COVID-19 appeared and Congress enacted a federal-benefits program to aid qualifying claimants.

Guthrie v. Guthrie

455 S.W.3d 839 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 18, 2015

She said that J.G. received a monthly Social Security payment of $710, qualified for Medicaid, and was 1 The child-support chart in effect at the time designated $738 as the monthly support amount for three … A circuit court’s determination of changed circumstances is a finding of fact that will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. Baber v. Baber, 2011 Ark. 40, 378 S.W.3d 699.

Zulpo v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas, Inc.

98 Ark. App. 320 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 11, 2007

He also argues that the exception to the exclusion clearly applied to child care, pointing out that the amount of money Christie received from it was relatively small. … It has been held in a variety of contexts that a single day’s act, or single transaction does not qualify as a business.

Hickory Heights Health & Rehab, LLC v. Yashika Watson

Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2025

Instead, it establishes the conditions for receipt of federal funding through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. … Clearly, the underpinning of Lamb is the residents’ freedom to contract. Here’s the rub: Hickory Heights and Belvedere elevate this question to the next level.

Smith v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas

88 Ark. App. 22 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 29, 2004

Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Id. … We agree with the Smiths that the policy language, when coupled with the relevant statutory provisions, does not clearly exclude liability coverage for a semitrailer used solely as a residence.

Arkansas Gas Consumers, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission

80 Ark. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 20, 2002

A final enrollment date of December 31, 2001, was established. … In Order No. 4, the Commission clarified Order No. 3, stating that qualifying customers’ debts must be for gas usage during the previous year’s winter heating season.

Herrington v. Ford Motor Co.

2010 Ark. App. 407 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 12, 2010

Persons comprising the venire are presumed to be unbiased and qualified to serve, and the burden is on the party challenging a juror to prove actual bias. Berry v. St. … When the jury was selected, it did not include Baxter, Bailey, and DeSoto — the three men who clearly expressed the possibility of holding appellants to a higher burden.

George Randall Wright v. Arkstone Real Estate Fund and Quanta Finance, LLC

2025 Ark. App. 89 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2025

To sell the property, Christiana Trust appointed Wilson & Associates, an entity qualified to foreclose a mortgage under the provisions in the Statutory Foreclosure Act. … Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Greenlee, supra.

Lawrence v. State

39 Ark. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jul 8, 1992

It is clearly the intent of this statute to prevent the trial of any person who is legally incompetent. See Ball v. State, 278 Ark. 423 , 646 S.W.2d 693 (1983). … Code Ann. § 5-1-110 (a)(5) (1987), which provides: (a) When the same conduct of a defendant may establish the commission of more than one offense, the defendant may be prosecuted for each such offense.

Dye v. Precision Foundation Specialties & Flow Rite Drainage Solutions, Inc.

646 S.W.3d 168 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 11, 2022

Furthermore, the court held that the Act in question was clearly enacted to reverse prior caselaw, thereby supporting retroactive application. Id. at 532, 294 S.W.3d at 420. … Retroactive application in this instance would be entirely contrary to well- established law against disturbing vested rights.

Cranfill v. Union Planters Bank, N.A.

86 Ark. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 14, 2004

Clearly, a party can receive a direct benefit from a loan without receiving any of the proceeds. In Nelson v. Cotham, we held that Mr. … Id. ' Clearly, the agreement appellant signed is not susceptible to more than one equally reasonable construction.

Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Director of Arkansas Employment Security Department

93 Ark. App. 303 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 30, 2005

Barkley then received a "Voluntary Severance Candidate Request Conditional Offer," which stated that his form had been received and that the company was trying to establish a pool of voluntary severance candidates. … While not conclusive, an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute is highly persuasive and will not be overturned unless it is clearly wrong. Death & Perm. Total Dis. Trust Fund v.

McDaniel v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n.1

2014 Ark. App. 529 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 8, 2014

Commission.1 If an order of the Commission is supported by substantial evidence and is neither unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable, unlawful, nor discriminatory, the appellate court must affirm the Commission’s actions.2 To establish … The Commission exists, at least in part, because it is made up of more qualified personnel to make such determinations, and our court should embrace that deference.

Horton v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

537 S.W.3d 740 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 15, 2017

She would be willing to have a “24/7 aide,” if she qualified, and was willing to get help from places other than Tolleson. She thought she was “capable enough.” “With people’s help,” she so believed. … App. 633 is clearly erroneous. 16 In resolving the clearly erroneous question, the reviewing court defers to the circuit court because of its superior opportunity to observe the parties and to judge the credibility of

Jessika Goforth v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

666 S.W.3d 138 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 19, 2023

The circuit court qualified her as an expert in the areas of mental health and substance-abuse disorder. Ms. Ellis testified that she had provided individual counseling sessions to appellant. Ms. … Adoptability and potential harm, however, are merely two factors to be considered and need not be established by clear and convincing evidence.

Gill v. State

457 S.W.3d 674 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 11, 2015

Trooper Ron Laslo, qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction, testified that he investigated the collision between appellant’s and Ms. … Appellant maintains that the facts clearly indicate that he perceived the risk and took appropriate steps to avoid an accident.