Case law

Steinert v. Director

64 Ark. App. 122 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 18, 1998

On appeal, the findings of the Board of Review are conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. Perdrix-Wang v. Director, 42 Ark. App. 218 , 856 S.W.2d 636 (1993). … Network Design Eng’g, Inc. v. Director, 52 Ark. App. 193 , 917 S.W.2d 168 (1996).

Alsbrook v. State

479 S.W.3d 584 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 6, 2016

App. 542, at 3, 336 S.W.3d 884, 885 (2009) (citing Barbee v. State, 346 Ark. 185, 56 S.W.3d 370 (2001); Brown v. State, 85 Ark. … Nelson v. State, 2011 Ark. 429, at 8, 384 S.W.3d 534, 539 (2011) (citing Talbert v. State, 367 Ark. 262, 239 S.W.3d 504 (2006)). We further note Arms v. State, 2014 Ark.

Wyatt v. Dent

2014 Ark. App. 343 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 28, 2014

See Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 470, 109 S.W.3d 653 (2003); Brown v. Brown, 2012 Ark. 89, 387 S.W.3d 159. 2  Cite as 2014 Ark. … Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, supra.

Allen v. Director, Employment Security Department

84 Ark. App. 239 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 17, 2003

Nor could we remand for the Board of Review to reopen its decision, even on a showing of good cause. This question was presented in Arkansas Employment Security Dep’t v. … That is a remedy which the employment security statutes simply do not provide at the Board of Review level. Arkansas Employment Security Dep’t v. Mellon, 322 Ark. at 718-19 , 910 S.W.2d at 701 .

Johnson v. Director, Department of Workforce Services

465 S.W.3d 878 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 17, 2015

OF REVIEW lNo. 2014-BR-030241 V. … Even the Board candidly observed that "there may have been a misunderstanding on the claimant's Part[.]"

Charles Edward Cross v. Director, Arkansas Division of Workforce Services

2021 Ark. App. 409 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 27, 2021

OF REVIEW V. … McDonald’s Corp. v. Hawkins, 315 Ark. 487, 868 S.W.2d 78 (1994). Because the Board decided this case in Cross’s favor, his appeal must be dismissed. Dismissed.

Rice v. Ragsdale

104 Ark. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 11, 2009

BROWN, Judge. … The supreme court has refused to adopt an alternative to the traditional “occurrence rule” in the following cases: Moix-McNutt v. Brown, supra; Ragar v. Brown, 332 Ark. 214 , 964 S.W.2d 372 (1998); Stoltz v.

J. P. Price Lumber Co. v. Daniels

270 Ark. 297 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 17, 1980

In this court the standard for review of board of review decisions is well settled. We must affirm if there is substantial evidence to support the board’s determination. Terry Dairy Products Co. v. … Stewart v. Charles L. Daniels, et al., 269 Ark. 809 , 601 S.W. 2d 245 (Ark. App. 1980). As noted above, the question here is whether we can go outside the record compiled by the appeals tribunal and the board of review.

Michael Grant v. Director, Department of Workforce Services

2023 Ark. App. 169 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 29, 2023

OF REVIEW [NO. 2021-BR-04061] V. … We do not conduct de novo reviews in appeals from the Board. Keener v. Dir., 2021 Ark. App. 88, 618 S.W.3d 446.

Walt Bennett Ford, Inc. v. Dyer

4 Ark. App. 354 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 14, 1982

City of Crossett v. Riles, 261 Ark. 522 , 549 S.W. 2d 800 (1977); Farmers Cooperative Ass’n. v. Garrison, 248 Ark. 948 , 454 S.W. 2d 644 (1970); Brown v. Aquilino, 271 Ark. 273 , 608 S.W. 2d 35 (Ark. App. 1980). … City of Crossett v. Riles, supra; Brown v. Aquilino, supra. In Green Chevrolet Company v.

Nancy Griffin v. Director, Department Of, Workforce Services

2023 Ark. App. 300 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 24, 2023

E-22-246 NANCY GRIFFIN OPINION DELIVERED MAY 24, 2023 APPELLANT V. … See Ferren v. Dir., 59 Ark. App. 213, 956 S.W.2d 198 (1997). A conclusory statement that does not detail or analyze the facts upon which it is based is not sufficient. Id.

McKissick v. Rolle

61 Ark. App. 266 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 15, 1998

This court reviews the findings of fact of the Board of Review in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, only reversing where the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Dray v. Director, 55 Ark. … The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony are matters to be resolved by the Board of Review. Anderson v. Director, 59 Ark. App. 266 , 957 S.W.2d 712 (1997).

Osterhout v. Everett

6 Ark. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 6, 1982

Additionally, we note that New Jersey has also decided this question in Nicholas v. Board of Review, 171 N.J. Super. 36 , 407 A.2d 1254 (1979). … Co. v.

McWilliams v. State

2009 Ark. App. 542 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jul 1, 2009

BROWN, Judge. liOn February 7, 2008, a Union County judge found that Edward McWilliams violated the terms and conditions of his probation and sentenced him to a seven-year term in the Arkansas Department of Correction. … See Barbee v. State, 346 Ark. 185 , 56 S.W.3d 370 (2001); Brown v. State, 85 Ark.App. 382 , 155 S.W.3d 22 (2004).

Whalen v. State

478 S.W.3d 249 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 9, 2015

And, again, cité a litany of cases, but for Arkansas State versus Alan [sic], 2013 [sic] Ark. 35, 425 S.W.3d 753 , which quotes Price v. Delaware, Brown v. Texas.” He also cited Delaware v. Prouse 1 and Mullinax v. … v.

Castrellon v. State

2013 Ark. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 19, 2013

v. … Brown v. State, 374 Ark. 341 , 288 S.W.3d 226 (2008). The victim’s testimony 15need not be corroborated, and the victim’s testimony alone, describing the sexual contact, is enough for a conviction. Colburn v.

Dever v. State

14 Ark. App. 107 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 6, 1985

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Appellee also refers us to Gaylord v. State, 1 Ark. App. 106 , 613 S.W.2d 409 (1981) and Brown v. State, 5 Ark. … In Browning v. State, 274 Ark. 13 , 621 S.

King v. Elkins Public Schools

22 Ark. App. 52 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jul 22, 1987

Leola School District v. McMahan, 289 Ark. 496 , 712 S.W.2d 903 (1986). … A school board’s action in this regard is arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory only if the board’s decision is not supportable on any rational basis. Kirtley v.

Price v. Everett

2 Ark. App. 98 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 3, 1981

In Duvall v. Daniels, 1 Ark. … Thus, after a period of fruitless searching for a job, it may then be reasonable for the Board to expect the claimant to moderate her salary expectation. See, Johnson v.

Gilton v. State

562 S.W.3d 257 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 17, 2018

Castrellon v. State , 2013 Ark. App. 408 , at 2, 428 S.W.3d 607 , 609-10. … See Brown v. State , 374 Ark. 341 , 288 S.W.3d 226 (2008).