Case law

Slocum v. State

2013 Ark. 406 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 2013

We held that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in dismissing the habeas petition on the basis that, even if King’s DNA and fingerprints were not found on the mask, his actual innocence could not be established in … Code Ann. § 12-12-1101, and amended it to provide for DNA testing of all individuals convicted of all “qualifying offenses.” Ark.

Givens v. State

42 Ark. App. 173 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 23, 1993

Here, the appellant clearly did not meet his burden of proof. … From these facts we conclude the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case, but even if he had done so, the State clearly had a racially neutral reason for challenging Mr. Austin.

Seelig v. Phillips County

129 Ark. 473 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 11, 1917

to be paid by the county, “agree to supply all the material and perform, in a practical manner, all of the work embraced in the adopted Phillips County, Arkansas, courthouse and jail building plans and specifications, as qualified … It is my recollection that they were to pay the cost of having them printed. ” This testimony is undisputed and it clearly establishes the fact that the contractors were not entitled to be reimbursed the amount paid by them

Fisher v. Boling

575 S.W.3d 592 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 17, 2019

We must therefore do the best we can to discern his intent and do so in accordance with established legal principles. See Murphy v. … And that is why I have turned to the established presumptions.

Schnekloth v. Deakins

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 7, 2022

“On a motion to dismiss, qualified immunity warrants dismissal ‘only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.’” Northland Baptist Church of St. Paul v. Walz, 530 F. Supp. 3d 790, 806 (D. … right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 30, 2004

RESPONSE If by "deed this property" you mean "donate," I believe the answer to this question is clearly "no." Ark. Const. art. 12 , § 5 . … Helena-West Helena Industrial Development Corp., 226 Ark. 620 , 625-26 , 291 S.W.2d 802 (1956) "establishes beyond all question that a municipality cannot contribute to a private, nonprofit corporation regardless of whether

Herndon v. Byers

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 22, 2023

; (3) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to allege a plausible retaliation claim and failed to allege any actual physical injury. … that they violated clearly established rights.

Henderson v. State

279 Ark. 414 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 13, 1983

It was also established that when appellant left for Houston, he abandoned the van he was driving on the day of the murder. … Appellant’s contention that a death qualified jury is more conviction prone was rejected in Lasley v.

State v. Jernigan

385 S.W.3d 776 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 17, 2011

The standard of review in a bench trial is not whether there is substantial evidence 1 to support the findings of the circuit court, but whether the circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance … In other words, if a candidate was unable to establish residency by showing physical presence in the requisite location, this court has allowed a candidate to establish residency by showing | indomiciliary intent in the requisite

Harvison v. Charles E. Davis & Associates, Inc.

310 Ark. 104 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 29, 1992

That affidavit clearly qualifies as proof for the Harvisons’ position and just as clearly establishes a material issue of fact regarding any underlying facts that might prohibit forfeiture. … Whether the Harvisons implicitly waived their right to forfeiture is clearly a question of fact that should have been resolved at trial. See, e.g., Moore Ford Co. v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 28, 2000

I do not know, for instance, whether the developer attempted in the plats or any original bill of assurances to qualify the extent of the conveyed easement. … not indicated and I will not speculate who owns fee title to the dedicated property, but, assuming the property was platted and sold subject to an unrestricted easement, the public, as incarnated in the city government, clearly

Fulkerson v. Van Buren

60 Ark. App. 257 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 11, 1998

Because I do not believe the trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, I would affirm. … Third, it appears to me that appellee established seven years of possession with all the qualifying factors before appellant ever asserted his ownership. I would affirm. Stroud, J. joins in this dissent.

Arkansans for Healthy Eyes, a Ballot Question Committee; And Vicki Farmer, Individually and on Behalf of Arkansans for Healthy Eyes v. John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas; Safe Surgery Arkansas, a Ballot Question Committee; And Laurie Barber, M.D., Individually and on Behalf of Safe Surgery Arkansas, an Original Actionr

2020 Ark. 270 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 17, 2020

Accordingly, I find that the Sponsor, Safe Surgery Arkansas, submitted insufficient signatures to qualify for the November 3, 2020 General Election Ballot. … Under our well-established standard of review, we will accept the special master’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See Roberts v. Priest, 334 Ark. 503, 975 S.W.2d 850 (1998).

Womack v. Foster

340 Ark. 124 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 20, 2000

Two methods of voting are established by the Arkansas Constitution. … , or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

Cohen v. Commodity Credit Corp.

172 F. Supp. 803 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 7, 1959

The Committee said: “The venue of suits against the Corporation is established in the District of Columbia, or in the district in which the plaintiff resides or is engaged in business.” … The statute itself is not clearly determinative, although the plaintiff argues that in fixing venue where the plaintiff engages in business, the statute leaves, it to the plaintiff to engage in any business whatever in any

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 15, 2005

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

Robert Eugene Dyas v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 538 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 2, 2020

We will not reverse the circuit court’s decision to revoke unless it is clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. E.g., Ferguson v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 4, at 3, 479 S.W.3d 588, 590. … The circuit court also acted within its discretion when it resentenced Dyas to ten years’ imprisonment in the ADC after he did not qualify for the ACC.

Brown v. United States

342 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 10, 1972

affirmatively established by section 4042, 18 U.S.C.A. 374 U.S. at 164-165 , 83 S.Ct. 1850 . … Perhaps they had that knowledge, but the record does not establish its existence.

Jack Bennett and Cindy Bennett v. Wiley B. Ballow

653 S.W.3d 357 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 7, 2022

The test on review is a clearly erroneous standard (i.e., whether this court can say that the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous). Id. … Further, constructive fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence, which “is a degree of proof that produces in the finder of fact a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established.”

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 24, 2001

However, A.C.A. § 17-38-304 (f) clearly establishes that a full-term, formal apprenticeship is not an invariable condition precedent to one's applying to become a journeyman plumber: The Committee of Plumbing Examiners shall … To my mind, these provisions verge on flatly contradicting those of A.C.A. §§ 17-38-304 (d) and (f) on a matter totally apart from the question of whether the SPAC or the SCPE may determine who is qualified to apply for a