Case law

LANG PROPERTIES, LLC v. MICHAEL GROBER, HIS HEIRS AND ASSIGNS; THE CITY OF FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS; SEBASTIAN COUNTY, ARKANSAS; AND ANY PERSON, ENTITY OR ORGANIZATION CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE, INTEREST OR OWNERSHIP IN THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 08N, RANGE 32w, aCREAGE 0, lOT 152, SOUTHBROOK ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS

2026 Ark. App. 281 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 6, 2026

Strict construction means that nothing is taken as intended that is not clearly expressed. Id. Under settled principles of statutory construction, this omission is dispositive. … First, it establishes that the basic premise for Lang’s arguments is correct.

CRAWFORD COUNTY, ARKANSAS v. Jones

91 Ark. App. 161 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 1, 2005

be separated by lay off while there are extra help, temporary, seasonal or probationary employees serving in the department in the same or equal or lower-level position for which regular-status employee or employees are qualified … Therefore, Norman clearly controls on this issue, and the fee request was untimely. See also Morehouse v. Lawson, 90 Ark. App. 379 , 206 S.W.3d 295 (2005).

Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.; And Aaron Marvell Foster v. Frank McMillion, Allen Jones, Carlton Pettus, Hunter Bokker, Bengi Bokker, and Zack Billingsley

2025 Ark. App. 268 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 30, 2025

McMillion testified that he is not qualified to do hazardous-materials cleanup or disposal. … Further, there was evidence from other 28 witnesses that established the same fact that Ponder testified to, as well as other evidence that established Old Dominion’s liability

Johnson v. State

70 Ark. App. 343 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 7, 2000

Appellant’s case clearly presents no similar conduct or fighting words. … Our supreme court clearly indicated as much when it decided Stewart v.

Multi-Craft Contractors, Inc. v. Yousey

519 S.W.3d 761 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 24, 2017

The evidence established only that Yousey’s MRI showed a potential shear injury. Dr. … Our court has established that neuropsychological testing, without more, is not adequate to establish an organic brain injury by “objective findings.” Parson v. Ark. Methodist Hosp., 103 Ark.

Lewis v. Gubanski

50 Ark. App. 255 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 13, 1995

Once such a foundation has been established, the question is left to the jury to determine whether the accused acquiesced in the statement. 302 Ark. at 537 , 792 S.W.2d at 291 . … He clearly knew that the appellant was going to testify about the statement that her husband had given to the insurance investigator, and her attorney told the judge that it was inconsistent with what Goodsell had testified

Branam v. Haraeus Electro-Nite, LLC

675 S.W.3d 183 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 20, 2023

Further, Hall and Branam argued that Davis and IPP acknowledged that “the wreck between [the] Jeep and Hinshaw’s Volvo tractor-trailer occurred a ‘split instant’ after the Davis truck had collided with the Acura, which clearly … While those items were not attached to the response itself, we find that their contemporaneous service on all parties and filing with the circuit court nonetheless qualified as “served therewith” for purposes of Rule 56

Vicky Bass Haynes v. Benton Ned Bass

2023 Ark. App. 385 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 13, 2023

He explained that the note was in his name because Vicky was unable to qualify for a loan. … The receiver shall prepare and submit to the Court a report indicating the amount determined by the receiver to accurately establish debt service, insurance, taxes, and maintenance paid by the Defendant while

Robinson v. State

526 S.W.3d 20 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 7, 2017

your actions on with your name first explaining your violation, bias and prejudice toward me to show proof that you judge, are not honored of trust and not qualified … App. 377 possessed such required knowledge from other sources, is required to establish the validity of a waiver. 18 The burden is upon the State to show that an accused voluntarily and intelligently waived his fundamental