Case law

Meeks v. Meeks

290 Ark. 563 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 22, 1986

The trial court entered a final decree on January 14,1985, ordering the appellant to pay $700 per month child support and establishing visitation rights. … The chancellor heard the testimony, examined the evidence, and concluded that the appellant had not established a right to those funds as his separate property. We cannot say this decision was clearly wrong.

Saxton v. Arkansas Gazette Co.

264 Ark. 133 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 17, 1978

Further, the use of the words "to any other authority" in this section of the Act clearly indicates that the privilege asserted here is applicable to civil proceedings. … The reason asserted for this immunity is that public officials should be unhampered, or uninhibited, in any way, in serving the public will.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 5, 2008

Given that the subjects of the request are city employees, I believe documents containing the requested information clearly qualify as "public records" under this definition. As my predecessor noted in Op. Att'y Gen. … The FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

Graftenreed v. Seabaugh

100 Ark. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 28, 2007

There is a decided tendency to permit the fact-finder to hear the testimony ofpersons having superior knowledge in the given field, unless they are clearly lacking in training and experience. Id. … When there is evidence to establish a causal connection between the negligence of the defendant and the damage, it is proper for the case to go to the jury. Id.

Amanda Harris v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

2022 Ark. App. 499 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 7, 2022

The court noted that the case had been put off a long time, hoping that family members would qualify to take the children, but they did not. … The appellate inquiry is whether the circuit court’s finding that the disputed fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. Id.

Wolfe Ex Rel. W.W. v. Fayetteville, Arkansas School District

600 F. Supp. 2d 1011 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 26, 2009

The Arkansas Act protects “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Arkansas Constitution.... ” Ark.Code Ann. § 16-123-105(a). … Most of the statements at issue in the present case are not clearly opinions. Taking each of the previously-mentioned statements in turn, Zeagler’s written statement published to Detective Lee is objectively verifiable.

John Kyle Day v. Laura "missy" Michelle Wardlaw; Bradley County Board of Election Commissioners; Desha County Board of Election Commissioners; Drew County Board of Election Commissioners; Cole Jester, in His Official Capacity as Arkansas Secretary of State; Republican Party of Arkansas; And Sharon Stuthard, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the State Committee of the Republican Party of Arkansas

2026 Ark. 21 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 11, 2026

The circuit court’s finding that only a bond forfeiture occurred in this case is not clearly erroneous. … I would also, however, dismiss Day’s claims against the Secretary of State because of sovereign immunity.

De Julius v. Sumner

373 Ark. 156 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 10, 2008

Dejulius has not established that he was prevented from doing so earlier. Dejulius has also failed to show that his interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. … In fact, at the final approval hearing, Dejulius’s counsel volunteered his opinion that the class counsel were qualified and experienced and reached the settlement properly.

Tackett v. State

298 Ark. 20 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 20, 1989

Tackett also argues that the State failed to prove the cause of the victim’s death in that (1) the physician (Eugene Shatz) who testified as to the cause of death was not qualified to do so and (2) even if he had been qualified … produce the result and the conduct of the defendant clearly insufficient.

North Little Rock Urban Renewal Agency v. Van Bibber

252 Ark. 1248 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 24, 1972

We cannot say that the chancellor’s finding that an assignment of the lease had been made to James by Nelson and ratified by Van Bibber is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … As one method of establishing the taking of the land and the lands remaining, the Crawfords were allowed to show that their net profits from the operation of the cafe were $4,000 per year and this net profit per annum was

Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. v. Beadles Enterprises, Inc.

367 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 2006

In bench trials, the standard of review on appeal is not whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the court, but whether the judge’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance … Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 311 Ark. 424 , 844 S.W.2d 337 (1993) (supplemental opinion), answers to interrogatories may qualify as admissions by a party-opponent which are not hearsay, as defined, and therefore may constitute

Duncan v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

2014 Ark. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 24, 2014

When they came into care none of the children’s immunizations were up to date, they had not had any recent medical appointments, and they needed extensive dental work. … We hold that termination based on this speculation is clearly erroneous.

Fox v. Glassing

2011 Ark. App. 633 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 26, 2011

Glassing has a substance-abuse problem, which claims endangers J.F. he | ^Evidence presented at trial established that Ms. … We will not reverse the trial court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous, Ford v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 9, 1995

Act 916 does not, on its face, establish a minimum millage rate. School boards retain their authority under Ark. … As the surcharge imposed by Act 916 clearly is an income tax, not a property tax, it is my opinion that Ark.

Parker v. Atlantic Research Corp.

87 Ark. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 30, 2004

An injury does not have to be accidental in order to qualify as an aggravation/new injury; it must, however, fall within one of the definitions of a compensable injury as set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § ll-9-102(4)(A). … An administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute or its own rules will not be overturned unless it is clearly wrong. Id.

Dowden v. Cross County Bank (In Re Brittenum & Associates, Inc.)

83 B.R. 574 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 26, 1988

As additional collateral, the Bank claims it has a right to set-off against a savings account established at the Bank in the name of Jon R. Brittenum and Associates, Inc. … Clearly, the letters express agreements and recite mutual exchanges of obligations sufficient to meet the essentials of a contract.

Williamson v. Sanofi Winthrop Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

347 Ark. 89 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 29, 2001

Clearly, the answer for all potential class members is “No.” But the case does not turn on that question. It would be the same if Williamson listed a common question as “Do all the plaintiffs speak English?” … and “Did you, the employee, meet the sales requirements to qualify under either the initial brochure or the monthly update reports?” These are the common questions.

Brewer v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

71 Ark. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 25, 2001

Clearly a parent who does not notice such obvious signs of abuse of a child living within his or her home is unfit. We do not reach appellant’s argument that ADHS failed to establish any abuse to Logan. … Rather, the court concluded that it, as the Juvenile Division of the White County Chancery Court, qualified as a court of competent jurisdiction and that, as such, it could determine from the evidence before it whether Cheryl

Sanders v. Wold

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 8, 2022

The Eighth Circuit has found parole officers to be entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity depending on the function at issue. … Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant Wold is entitled to either absolute immunity or qualified immunity. B.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 27, 2004

As noted above, I believe the project described in your agreement clearly falls within the range of those contemplated by the legislature in enacting the Interlocal Cooperation Act. … Regardless of whether it is or is not, the interlocal agreement you have submitted for my approval does not appear to envision any bond financing of the project, which in any case does not qualify as industrial development