Case law

City of Stuttgart v. McCuing

218 Ark. 34 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 13, 1950

provisions of this amendment by taxation or by sale of bonds for a specific purpose shall ever be used for any other or different purpose, “ (6) It shall be the duty of the mayor and city council or other governing body established … That case, we think, is clearly distinguishable and in fact supports our views above expressed.

Borchert v. Scott

248 Ark. 1050 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 19, 1970

Furthermore, these funds clearly qualify as moneys received from sources other than taxes, as that term is ordinarily used.” (Emphasis supplied). … The funds derived from the excise tax levied under Act 239 are clearly state revenue and clearly within the prohibition of Amendment 20 if they are paid into the state treasury.

Cooper Communities, Inc. and Subsidiaries v. United States

678 F. Supp. 1408 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 22, 1987

However, under section 446(b), if the method of accounting used by the taxpayer “does not clearly reflect income,” the Commissioner may impose a method that “does clearly reflect income.” … “It is a well-established principle that the Commissioner cannot require a taxpayer to change from an accounting method which clearly reflects income because the Commissioner considers an alternate method to more clearly

Murphy v. Epes

283 Ark. 517 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 29, 1984

The minimum qualifying income for a conventional loan of $37,000 is $21,469.68 per year. The qualifying annual income under the AHDA Single Family Bonds is $18,070.32. The median income in Arkansas is $19,737.00. … This court’s standard for reviewing a Chancellor’s finding of fact is that his decision will be affirmed unless clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

Constant v. Hodges

292 Ark. 439 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 15, 1987

These large lots on a major arterial represent the only way that you can have an established residential character that can be preserved. * * * * . . . … We do not reverse a finding of fact by a chancellor unless it is clearly wrong. ARCP 52; Liles v. Liles, 289 Ark. 159 , 711 S.W.2d 447 (1986).

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 15, 1998

the second class and incorporated towns within the State of Arkansas may elect a municipal attorney at the time of the election of other officers of these cities of the second class and incorporated towns, if it is not established … It clearly applies to persons holding elective offices (i.e., those "elected"), and also to persons "appointed to fill a vacancy."

Daniel v. Spivey

386 S.W.3d 424 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 2, 2012

We will not reverse a finding made by the circuit court unless it is clearly erroneous. Stills v. Stills, 2010 Ark. 132 , 361 S.W.3d 823 . … “Something more must be shown to qualify as standing in loco parentis.” Id. at 535 , 867 S.W.2d at 456 .

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 20, 2009

Given that you are a public employee, I believe documents containing the requested information clearly qualify as "public records" under this definition, as would any other records maintained by your employer relating to … The FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

Floyd v. State

495 S.W.3d 82 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 2016

We have stated that disqualification is a drastic measure to be imposed only where clearly required by the circumstances. Burnette v. Morgan, 303 Ark. 150 , 794 S.W.2d 145 (1990). … Accordingly, the State was not required to establish any prejudice from Crow’s representation of Floyd.

Raper v. Braley

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 11, 2023

(ECF No. 17). 4 The Court notes Defendant has not asserted a qualified immunity claim. Accordingly, the Court need not address Plaintiff’s argument regarding it. … Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed based solely on the grounds the Defendant was immune from suit and the official capacity claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Id.

Williams v. State

254 Ark. 799 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1973

post-conviction relief for the reasons stated as follows: “Appellant’s unrebutted evidence that Negroes were systematically excluded from or included in token numbers only upon the jury venires of Ashley County, Arkansas established … bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court concerning rights and prohibitions under the provisions of the United States Constitution and, there is no question that the United States Supreme Court has spoken clearly

Armstrong v. Union Trust Co.

113 Ark. 509 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 1914

Jackson, 95 Ark. 135 , as follows: “Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary, qualify or contradict, to add to or subtract from, the absolute terms of a valid written contract containing no ambiguity. ’ ’ Chief Justice Shaw … That case was correctly decided, but it is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar, and does not conflict with the rule here announced.

Edgin v. Entergy Operations, Inc.

331 Ark. 162 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 22, 1998

Surely employer Wackenhut should not be able to entice business customers by assuring them immunity from suit that might arise under § 11-9-410(a). … Arkansas statutory law establishes public policy, see Sterling Drug, Inc. v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 31, 2002

that may have qualified for "adjustment credit" under the old program may not qualify for "primary credit" under the new program. … The purpose of Amendment 60 was clearly to place a limit on interest rates.

In Re Stevens

177 B.R. 619 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 24, 1995

(The nonmov-ant may not rely on the allegations or denials in its pleadings to establish a genuine issue of fact, but must come forward with an affirmative showing of evidence). … It is clearly the better course for debtors to list all property in which they have an interest, even though it may not be property of the estate.

Arkansas Rural Medical Practice Student Loan & Scholarship Board v. Luter

292 Ark. 259 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 26, 1987

In 1949 the legislature passed Act 131 creating the Arkansas Rural Medical Practice Student Loan and Scholarship Board to promote medical practice in rural areas. 1 The act provided for a five member board, established methods … The Board notified him that Batesville, having a population of 8,241, did not qualify as a rural community. Dr. Luter refused payment of the notes and in October of 1985 the Board filed suit against him. Dr.

Gildehaus v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

503 S.W.3d 789 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 1, 2016

This finding by the Board is not clearly erroneous. … , operation, or contractual branding of another permitted liquor establishment.

Smith v. State

256 Ark. 425 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 22, 1974

was time spent in jail prior to determination of guilt rather than prior to pronouncement of sentence and that all delays in the period before trial were at the request of Smith, “including the exemption for legislative immunity … The official accusation by information of the prosecuting attorney was sufficient justification for holding appellant in custody until his entitlement to bail was established. Fikes v. State, supra.

Cairo & Fulton Railroad v. Parks

32 Ark. 131 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1877

The power of the courts to pass upon this question, is well established, but it is equally well established, that the courts should not declare an act to be unconstitutional, unless clearly satisfied that such is the case … full list of lands acquired, by grant, donation, or subscription, in aid of the construction of its road; which lands shall not be listed or subject to taxation; until ■ conveyed to actual purchasers by such company,” most clearly

Cox v. State

345 Ark. 391 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 28, 2001

State, 312 Ark. 48 , 846 S.W.2d 663 (1993) provides: Accordingly the defendant must first establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination which the appellant clearly did in this case when he pointed to a peremptory … The Supreme Court then concludes that “ ‘[a] single invidiously discriminatory governmental act’ is not ‘immunized by the absence of such discrimination in the making of other comparable decisions.’ ” Id.