Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 1, 2011

Custodians would be wise to consult local counsel when making these decisions with an eye toward establishing a usual practice. … If you are asking whether custodians can release non-exempt, public records on their own and not in response to any specific requester, then the answer is clearly "yes."

Board of Improvement v. School District

56 Ark. 354 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 11, 1892

public authorities, constituting an instrumentality for the performance of public functions, it was not to be deemed a subject of taxation, either general or special, unless the intent of the legislature to render it so clearly … The court held that the statutory exemption furnished no immunity from the special taxes, and that there was no implied exemption in favor of churches ; but in discussing the latter question Judge Bleckley said: “We can be

Antonio Jamar Guyton v. State of Arkansas

601 S.W.3d 440 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 29, 2020

The court clearly had jurisdiction under these facts. 2. … Fourth-degree sexual assault is a qualifying sex offense subject to the Act’s reporting requirements. Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-903(13)(i)(f). Guyton was convicted of this qualifying sex offense in 2002.

Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. v. Palasack

366 Ark. 601 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 22, 2006

Secondly, it is clearly distinguishable on its facts. … In the instant case, the circuit court’s definition clearly defines the class based on objective criteria.

Moore v. State

303 Ark. 514 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 5, 1990

All later actions which resulted in obtaining evidence were taken by qualified officers. Ark. … We cannot say that the trial court’s finding that the waiver of rights was voluntary was clearly erroneous.

Hunter v. Ward

476 F. Supp. 913 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 7, 1979

Under established principles of contract law, once there has been an offer and an acceptance of the offer a binding contractual relationship exists. … We must also disagree with the defendants’ contention with regard to the plaintiff’s alleged failure to establish irreparable harm.

Ward v. State

539 S.W.3d 546 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 1, 2018

McWilliams would have us answer "yes" on the ground that Ake clearly established that a State must provide an indigent defendant with a qualified mental health expert retained specifically for the defense team, not a neutral … The dissent calls our unwillingness to resolve the broader question whether Ake clearly established a right to an expert independent from the prosecution a "most unseemly maneuver."

Brandon v. Arkansas Western Gas Co.

76 Ark. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 5, 2001

We reversed and remanded on that issue with directions to the Commission to determine whether appellants’ action meets all of the prerequisites and necessary criteria as may be established by the Commission to qualify as … We reverse and remand on this issue with directions to the Commission to determine whether appellants’ action meets all of the prerequisites and necessary criteria as may be established by the Commission to qualify as a maintainable

Jennifer McGill, Individually and on Behalf of the Arkansas Canvassing Compliance Committee; And Cherokee Nation Entertainment, LLC v. John Thurston, in His Capacity as Arkansas Secretary of State Local Voters in Charge, a Ballot Question Committee; And Jim Knight, Individually and on Behalf of Local Voters in Charge Intervenors

698 S.W.3d 121 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 14, 2024

Considering the plain language of these statutory definitions, a wide range of groups or people can qualify as “the sponsor” for purposes of section 7-9-601(b)(3). … Petitioners next argue that the special master erred in finding that petitioners did not carry their burden of establishing violations of the pay-per-signature prohibition in Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-9-601(g)(1

State v. Ashley

1 Ark. 513 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1839

These enacting ■clauses clearly indicate, that it was the design and object of thelegis-]ature to create and establish but one banking institution. … by the act of incorporation, which would be clearly, not only irregular, but illegal.

Grable v. State

298 Ark. 489 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 1, 1989

Just as the defendant has no duty to establish any fact proving his innocence, Griffin v. … Clearly the state is in the better position to establish whatever charges it has made against the defendant. We have no doubt it is the duty of the state to bring a proper charge.

Vincent Hussey v. State of Arkansas

2026 Ark. 26 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2026

Standard of Review We do not reverse a trial court’s decision to deny a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under Act 1780 unless it is clearly erroneous. 13 A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there … Hussey merely contends the denial of his request for testing qualifies as a blanket violation of procedural due process without demonstrating an unconstitutional state action or inadequate state process.

State v. Aud

351 Ark. 531 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 23, 2003

Under these circumstances, we conclude that the State has failed to establish a proper appeal. … Aud's expert witness because the witness was not qualified to operate a BAC machine.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee

348 Ark. 707 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 16, 2002

We have further held that the qualified privilege must be exercised in a reasonable manner and for a proper purpose and that the immunity does not extend to irrelevant defamatory statements that have no relation to the interest … A plaintiff must establish actual damage to his reputation, but the showing of harm may be slight. Id.

Ark. Real Estate Co. v. Fullerton

232 Ark. 713 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 14, 1960

Certainly, we do not consider that appellants can come under the category “owner”, for the evidence clearly reflects that the stocks were sold as a means of directly promoting the enterprise of building warehouses. … In other words, under the undisputed facts, appellants, as a matter of law, clearly violated the Securities Act.

Jones v. State

45 Ark. App. 28 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 23, 1994

He clearly knew appellant and the particular apartment in which appellant lived. … Clearly, the burden was upon appellant to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. On appeal, the burden is on an appellant to bring up a record sufficient to demonstrate error. Irvin v. State, 28 Ark.

Covert v. Kelley

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 7, 2023

Additionally, qualified immunity does not apply because, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Covert, his allegations that defendants retaliated against him, in violation of his First Amendment rights, sufficiently … demonstrate a constitutional violation that is clearly established.

Smith v. Warren, City of

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 3, 2025

Warren is clearly immune from Smith’s negligence claim under Arkansas law. … Warren then focuses on Smith’s deposition, asserting that it demonstrates that Smith could not clearly or consistently articulate what medical condition qualified him for leave.

Smith v. Wright

461 S.W.3d 687 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 7, 2015

Judicial Power The judicial power is vested in the Judicial Department of state government, consisting of a Supreme Court and other courts established by this Constitution. § 2. … When interpreting the constitution, “our task is to read the laws as they are written, and interpret them in accordance with established principles of constitutional construction....

Carrick v. State

488 S.W.3d 541 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 9, 2016

There was no clearly expressed requirement that appellant bring an attorney to court with him. … Here, the court clearly had the authority to preside over criminal matters.