Case law

Bank of Eureka Springs v. Evans

353 Ark. 438 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 5, 2003

The majority then brushes aside this court’s own well-established precedents articulating five essential elements to support an action for malicious prosecution. … If probable cause existed, then clearly there were suspicious activities. Ark.

Maxwell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

90 Ark. App. 223 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 9, 2005

In this appeal, appellant argues that the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous regarding T.M. … In reviewing the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence, we will not reverse unless the trial court clearly erred in finding that the relevant facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. Baker v.

Sharp County v. Northeast Arkansas Planning & Consulting Co.

269 Ark. 336 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 1980

Pursuant to Rule 52 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, we will not reverse a trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, and we do not find them to be clearly erroneous in this case. 1 Appellant … The rule merely established the same standard of "clearly erroneous" for appellate review of findings of fact made by a chancellor and a circuit judge sitting as a jury.

Miles v. Gordon

234 Ark. 525 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 29, 1962

Tbe act establishes tbe State Reserve Fund Commission and authorizes that Commission to borrow money and issue Certificates of Indebtedness to evidence its debt. … the pledges to the payment of the indebtedness were clearly limited.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 17, 2004

Given that the requested records relate to your public employment, I believe they clearly qualify as "public records" under this definition. As my predecessor noted in Op. Att'y Gen. … Assuming you have filed any such documents, the initial question will be whether they qualify as "personnel records" subject to review under the Young standard discussed above or whether they qualify as "employee evaluation

Raney v. Raulston

238 Ark. 875 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 11, 1965

An establishment furnishing primarily domiciliary care is not within this definition. * * * “ (f) ‘Nursing Home’ means and shall be construed to include any building, structure, agency, institution, or other place, for the … Actually, it will be noted that both the definitions of “hospital” and “nursing home” vexy clearly denote buildings used for the service of persons who are afflicted with some type of illness or infirmity.

In re Special Task Force- Ark. R. Civ. P. 9 49 52 and Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 8

2014 Ark. 340 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Aug 7, 2014

Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous (clearly against the preponderance of the evidence), and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the … If the nonparty is immune from suit, however, the nonparty will not have joint or several liability.

Arkansas State Highway Commission v. First Pyramid Life Insurance

269 Ark. 278 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 1980

There was clearly no error in this regard. … This explanation is not totally satisfactory, because a cross-examining attorney is not entitled to embark upon a fishing expedition with immunity from any unfavorable information he may elicit.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 26, 2007

The Agreement is clearly of a kind contemplated in the Municipal Property Owners' Improvement Law (the "Act"), A.C.A. §§ 14-94-101 through-128 (Repl. 1998 Supp. 2005), which the Agreement itself recites *Page 2 as authorizing … Att'y Gen. 82-140, in which one of my predecessors opined that a volunteer fire department qualified as a "political subdivision" of the state because it constituted an improvement district.

Clark v. State

373 Ark. 161 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 10, 2008

We hold that the circuit court did not clearly err and affirm the circuit court’s order. … Under the standard of review for a proceeding on a Rule 37.1 petition, the denial of postconviction relief is not reversed unless the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of

Lewis v. West

318 Ark. 334 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 19, 1994

The above statutory provisions very clearly require political party nominees in special or general elections to be selected first at a primary election and then certified. … It is undisputed that, at the time set by law for filing for office as a party candidate, the IPA had promulgated no party rules, had no plans to conduct a primary and had established no ballot fees for filing for any offices

Rector v. Danley

14 Ark. 304 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1854

Had the excluded evidence been admitted, all 'the evidence in the entire record tending to the point in question, so far from going to establish clearly, when considered together, such facts and circumstances as would have … Certainly the supposed excessive generosity of the first instruction as to the possession of the son, by means of the possession of the father, is fully enough qualified by the words, “so long as they live together,” which

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 29, 2007

The FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." … Given that exemptions from disclosure must be narrowly construed, it is the burden of an individual resisting disclosure to establish that his "privacy interests outweighed that of the public's under the circumstances presented

Dollar General Corporation; Dolgencorp, LLC, D/B/A Dollar General; Caddo Trading Co., Inc.; Rodney Fagan and Judy Fagan v. Karen Renee Elder

2019 Ark. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 13, 2019

Elder sought to establish causation through the testimony of Dr. Carson and herself. … Clearly, any expert has experience and expertise, but not all experience and expertise are the same. 1 Here, Dr.

Taylor v. Scott

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 24, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their … so, was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Roane v. Green & Wilson

24 Ark. 210 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1866

the terms of the contract; but would offer no matter of defence-in bar of a recovery upon the contract even in its qualified state. … Even though, in reducing the agreement to writing, there was clearly a mistake made, parol evidence is inadmissible to correct it. As in the case of Jackson vs. Sill, 11 John.

Gilbert v. City of Little Rock

544 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 13, 1982

The complainant in McDonnell Douglas established a prima facie case by showing (1) that he belonged to a racial minority; (2) that he applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; … Conclusion Some plaintiffs did not prove they were qualified for promotions.

Toney v. Haskins

7 Ark. App. 98 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 12, 1983

Haskins’ testimony, if believed and admissible, would clearly establish both the relationship and that the agent had gained a secret profit by a breach of his duty to the principal. … Toney contends that Haskins’ testimony to establish that relationship was violative of the parol evidence rule.

McCoy v. Iverson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 26, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert qualified immunity, which protects government officials from personal liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … In this case, each Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because Mr.

Robert Woodward v. State of Arkansas

2022 Ark. 102 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 19, 2022

court dismissed the civil complaint in the same order, finding that the civil complaint was improperly filed in the criminal matter, failed to state facts upon which relief could be granted, and was barred by prosecutorial immunity … The findings of the circuit court do not establish that a motion to vacate was received to be filed within the ninety-day time frame to be considered timely for postconviction relief.