Case law

Pardue v. State

363 Ark. 567 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 13, 2005

A petitioner may qualify for relief under Ark. R. Crim. … However, the evidence before the trial court at the postconviction-relief hearing clearly established that a factual basis did exist at the time of the guilty plea.

Beck v. State

12 Ark. App. 341 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 10, 1984

Having qualified as an expert, Branch’s testimony and opinion established at least a fact question for the jury concerning whether the seized weapon was a machine gun. … Appellant offered no evidence to rebut Branch’s opinion, and the jury clearly resolved that fact question against the appellant. Affirmed. Cracraft, C.J., and Cloninger, J., agree.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 16, 1996

You also note, however, that it would have the effect of establishing a class of individuals out of the inmate population who are required to go to school when other inmates are not, and the Board is concerned about any potential … This action might be pled as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, under which state officers and employees are entitled to only qualified immunity. It is my opinion, however, that such an action would fail.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 10, 2003

If the situation that prompted his activation does not qualify as an "emergency," he may qualify for paid training leave pursuant to A.C.A. § 21-4-102 (a). … I feel obliged to comment in passing on the qualifying language "up to thirty days" in my previous sentence.

Ellison v. BEST FOODS, a DIV. OF CPC INTERN.

598 F. Supp. 159 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 14, 1984

The Bank hoped to change this situation by hiring a more qualified individual instead of merely promoting from among the Bank's current employees someone less qualified. … Obviously, such a condition will not immunize the defendant from actions that stemmed from discriminatory conduct.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Kistler

320 Ark. 501 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1995

Further, she receives Supplemental Security Income and is Medicaid qualified. She currently lives with, and is cared for by, her mother, Mrs. Jennifer Kistler. … Further, § 25-15-212 establishes an entitlement to “judicial review of the action under this subchapter.” Section 25-15-212 establishes the rules and procedures applicable to the process. In Whitlock v. G.P.W.

Russell v. Webb

96 Ark. 190 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 11, 1910

Hale, who qualified as a competent surveyor. … If the meaning of the jury can be clearly collected from the verdict, it ought not to be set aside.

Hicks v. Faith

2011 Ark. App. 330 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 4, 2011

In Devine, the supreme court held that the principle established in custody cases — that the law prefers a parent over a grandparent unless the parent is proved to be incompetent or unfit — applied in guardianship cases. … We hold that the court’s findings regarding whether Jeremy was qualified and suitable and what was in Logan’s best interest are not clearly erroneous; therefore, we affirm the court’s order. Affirmed.

Montana Weiner and Ohana Construction & Property Maintenance, LLC v. Merchant Capital Group, LLC, D/B/A Greenbox Capital Group, LLC

2026 Ark. App. 243 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 22, 2026

Weiner clearly knew what they were doing. As far as a regulatory scheme to govern this contract, there clearly is none. And I am unwilling to judicially impose one. … And the manner in which that creditor was paid was established by the parties’ contract.

Glover v. State

248 Ark. 1260 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 1970

Ed. 2d 751 , cited and relied on by the majority, which should make the case at bar immune to the rules this court followed long before the United States Supreme Court ever heard of the Indiana case of Irvin v. Dowd. … The defendant challenged the qualification of the venireman but the trial court held that he was qualified.

Bean v. Office of Child Support Enforcement

340 Ark. 286 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 3, 2000

As noted, i'n the absence of an express declaration, in order for a statute to be applied retroactively, it either must affect the fiscal viability of the State or qualify as remedial. … The chancellor’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Affirmed. 1 This statute was again amended in 1997 and 1999.

Axley v. Hardin

353 Ark. 529 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 12, 2003

told Axley that he or the College qualified for such an exemption. … Citing § 25-15-207(a), the McEuen court held that the words of the statute “clearly establish that it is not necessary that the injury already have occurred or that a person show he was affected by it in order to obtain a

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 9, 2003

If so, a tax devoted to the repayment of a revolving loan clearly could not qualify as a credit against the uniform rate of tax, thus rendering A.C.A. § 26-80-204(18)(B) unconstitutional. … Simply stated, then, when the voters provide that tax revenues will be spent in a particular manner, the legislature cannot qualify the use of those revenues.

Harmon v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 7, 2025

immunity. … However, because the state of the law was not clearly established at the time of the search in Wilson, the Supreme Court held that the defendant officers in that case were entitled to qualified immunity.

Franklin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

319 Ark. 468 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 13, 1995

Appellant’s burden, then, in order to establish an absence of substantial evidence, is to show that the proof before the Department was so nearly undisputed that fair-minded persons could not reach its conclusion. Id. … Further, the evidence of record is undisputed that appellant was clearly dependent upon her existing support network of the local aging agency, neighbors, church members, and family for the accomplishment of such basic tasks

Brown v. State

38 Ark. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 1, 1992

In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we make an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances and reverse only if the ruling was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence … We believe the officer’s testimony regarding his training that dealt in depth with the horizontal gaze nystagmus test was sufficient to establish him as an expert witness qualified to discuss the details and results of the

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 2, 2004

The underlying question, then, is whether a house under construction might be considered the domicile of an alderman who was clearly domiciled in this ward before the new construction began, but who has sold his former home … The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the candidate never abandoned his residency and therefore, was qualified for the general election.

Thomas v. Culclager

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 13, 2023

The other question— unique to the qualified-immunity context—asks whether the applicable law was so “clearly established” that the government official is either a complete nincompoop or … And it’s clearly established that such seizures violate the First Amendment.209 Accordingly, Warden Culclager is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Upton v. Upton

26 Ark. App. 78 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 16, 1988

The Arkansas Supreme Court, however, has held that the attorney who drafted a will and was named therein as attorney for the estate was a qualified attesting witness. Sullivant v. … App. 233 , 657 S.W.2d 572 (1983), after citing some of the cases cited here, this court stated: The requirements for establishing an attested will must be read together and construed to permit establishment of the will by

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 5, 1990

following question in this regard: Are vocational technical schools, such as Pine Vocational Technical School, required to give preference to blind persons for operating vending facilities on their premises, or do they qualify … I do not believe that a court would conclude in this instance that the agency's interpretation of 22-3-1302 (1) is clearly wrong.