Case law

McGuire v. Smith

58 Ark. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 11, 1997

Appellee responded that she was the daughter of the deceased and that, even if she were not, she was qualified to serve as personal representative. … Appellants also requested that no attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses attributable to establishing appellee’s claim be taken from the assets of the estate.

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.

Shields v. Kimble

486 S.W.3d 791 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 9, 2016

To establish contempt, there must be willful disobedience of a valid order of a court. Holifield, 2009 Ark. App. 280, 307 S.W.3d 608. … This court stated that it could not hold “a mother who is legitimately concerned about the welfare of her child and has acted upon the advice of DHS and qualified professionals . . . in willful contempt of court.”

J & v. REST. SUPPLY ETC. v. Supreme Fixture Co.

69 S.W.3d 881 · 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. Supreme Fixture asked and obtained from the project's food-service consultant a set of plans for J & V. … The record clearly demonstrates that J & V purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within this state, see Hanson v.

Amanda Sharum v. Director, Arkansas Departmentof Commerce, Division of Workforce Services

642 S.W.3d 615 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 2, 2022

The Board finds that the evidence does not establish by a preponderance that the late filing of the appeal to the Board was due to circumstances beyond her control. … The claims process was not clearly communicated to Sharum in the documents that she received from the Division.

Ildifonso Garza and Shana Hembrey v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child

2024 Ark. App. 276 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 24, 2024

We review for clear error, and a finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been … She claims that DHS only paid lip service to the search for relative placement and simply denied some of the potential relative placements without properly determining whether those relatives would actually qualify as a

Elaine Petroleum Distributor, Inc., and Qingdao Xiyingmen Double Camel Tyre Co., Ltd. v. Betsy Snyder, Administratrix of the Estate of Michael Snyder

640 S.W.3d 704 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 9, 2022

The court reasoned that to rule otherwise would effectively make the manufacturer immune from suit. … It is well established that the requirement of personal jurisdiction “recognizes and protects an individual liberty interest,” which, like other individual rights, may be waived in a variety of ways.

Wells v. State

518 S.W.3d 106 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 15, 2017

App. 174 We find that this sequence of events clearly gives rise to a reasonable suspicion on which Clark could detain Wells pursuant to Rule 3.1. See, e.g., Nottingham v. State, 29 Ark. … -101(4) provides that after a defendant has been found guilty by a jury, the circuit court, “in its discretion, may also instruct the jury that counsel may argue as to alternative sentences for which the defendant may qualify

Vivek Dicholkar v. Blake McMillon

686 S.W.3d 542 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 28, 2024

Additionally, when an interpreter is requested or when the court determines that a party to, or a witness in, a court proceeding has limited English proficiency, a qualified interpreter shall be appointed under procedures … Appellee’s offer clearly exceeded appellant’s medical bills of $5,059.83, which appellee conceded were related to the 36 Calvert v. Est. of Calvert, 99 Ark.

Kentrell Sims v. State of Arkansas

704 S.W.3d 338 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 22, 2025

Thus, Sims had already established the basis for Artis’s action. … The judge was clearly focused on preventing this witness from telling the jury what conclusion to reach.

Jonathan Walker v. State of Arkansas

669 S.W.3d 243 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 17, 2023

Walker thus argues that the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress was clearly erroneous. For the following reasons, we disagree. … Therefore, the prior convictions for similar conduct were relevant to establish Walker’s knowledge and intent to commit these crimes.

Murphy v. Arkansas Department of Correction

2024 Ark. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 9, 2024

Murphy stated, however, that because the job listing stated that proficiency in Microsoft Word and other related computer programs was required, she was not qualified for the job and that she could not be trained for the … It is well established that an employee who sustains a scheduled injury shall not be entitled to permanent partial-disability benefits in excess of the percentage of her permanent physical impairment.

Ashley Jacks, Individually and as parent/legal Custodian to Minor Beneficiaries, Paris Ludwig and Bayli Ludwig, of the Havis L. Jacks Revocable Trust v. Sandra Brossett, Individually, as of the Last Will and Testament of Havis L. Jacks, and as Trustee of the Havis L. Jacks Revocable Trust

2024 Ark. App. 6 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 10, 2024

To summarize, Havis clearly intended to put Sandra in charge of his estate and to prevent Ashley from exercising any control over it. … Clearly, Ashley was required to file the claim as “next friend” of her minor children. Why then, however distasteful, were the minor children not forced to forfeit their inheritance?

Arkansas Department of Community Correction v. Barclay

518 S.W.3d 138 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 5, 2017

ADCC states that the information acquired from the online sources was not before the ALJ or the Commission and that “[i]t is not fair to a party for a finding to be made upon appeal which clearly relied upon evidence an … App. 214 Because Barclay failed to prove all the elements required to establish a compensable occupational disease, I would reverse the Commission’s decision awarding benefits.

Brandau v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

512 S.W.3d 636 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 15, 2017

She argues that there was inadequate proof to establish that she is indifferent or incapable of remedying any subsequent factors. 20 … They argue that the record clearly supports affirmance under the “subsequent factors” and “aggravated circumstances” grounds. We agree.

Jessica Mathis v. Glen Alan Hickman, Jr.

2024 Ark. App. 172 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 6, 2024

In order to establish civil contempt, there must be willful disobedience of a valid order of a court. Applegate v. Applegate, 101 Ark. App. 289, 275 S.W.3d 682 (2008). … Jessica also admitted that both children qualify for a state program that provides institutionalized care but thought the children could be cared for at home.

Cari Ann Jackson v. Harps Food Stores, Inc.

610 S.W.3d 173 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 21, 2020

What you are arguing is that the facts of this case would qualify for a policy creating a duty? MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, Your Honor. … As in Tuggle, there is no evidence of Harps’s negligence causing Jackson’s injuries; Harps’s ownership of the shopping cart cannot establish negligence any more than ownership of the runaway rail car could establish the

Jamar Conic v. State of Arkansas

624 S.W.3d 322 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 28, 2021

The court’s decision that Conic could represent himself during the felony sentencing hearing was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has the right to be represented by a qualified attorney of his or her choice. 4 This right is not absolute; 5 however, the exercise of United States v.

Forever Green Athletic Fields, Inc. v. Lasiter Construction, Inc.

2011 Ark. App. 347 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 11, 2011

Forever Green was also to recommend qualified installation subcontractors. Lasiter Construction later hired one subcontractor recommended, by Forever Green. … The third-party-beneficiary claims are clearly based on breach of contract and are therefore included in the new trial. B.

Black v. Duffie

508 S.W.3d 40 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 7, 2016

The test on review is a clearly erroneous standard (i.e., whether we can say that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous). Berry v. Walker, 2012 Ark. App. 16. … App. 584 clearly erroneous. Appellee cites Watson v.