Case law

Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal v. Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology Commission

354 Ark. 563 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 30, 2003

He explained that the only adverse effect clearly shown to be caused by dioxin is chloracne, a very disfiguring and persistent form of acne. … Thus, while an agency’s interpretation is not conclusive, it will not be overturned unless it is clearly wrong. Id.

Hancock v. Tri-State Insurance

43 Ark. App. 47 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jul 7, 1993

‘Insured’ means any person or organization qualifying as an insured in the Who Is An Insured provision of the applicable coverage. … Also, the evidence clearly establishes that the named insured in this policy is the trucking company, and that both Messrs. Hancock and Videll were its employees.

Cutright v. State

97 Ark. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 6, 2006

(ii) The extraordinary physical or emotional needs of the child as established by testimony of a qualified expert witness. … The burden of establishing the existence of good cause not to follow the order of preferences established in subsection (b) shall be on the party urging that the preferences not be followed. (Emphasis added.)

Bodcaw Lumber Co. v. Goode

160 Ark. 48 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1923

That principle was clearly recognized by this court in the case of Osborn v. Arkansas Ter. Oil & Gas Co., 103 Ark. 175 . … On the last rehearing the court based its conclusion on what was conceived to be a rule of property established by a long line of decisions in that State, though the majority opinion declared that those cases were in harmony

Educators & Professional Life Insurance v. Jordan

259 Ark. 710 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 10, 1976

A leading case, which clearly recites the reasons for the conclusion reached, is John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Company v. Hicks, 43 Ohio App. 242 , 183 N.E 93. … However, until such proof is made the plaintiff has not established a substantive right to recover.

Taylor v. Jones

495 F. Supp. 1285 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 8, 1980

The defense witnesses, moreover, though they talked a good deal about internal complaint procedures, were never able to describe clearly what those procedures were. … . § 1988 does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States. NAACP v. Civiletti, 609 F.2d 514 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 100 S.Ct. 3012 , 65 L.Ed.2d-(1980).

Jumper v. L & M Transportation, Inc.

296 Ark. 319 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 19, 1988

In fact, the record clearly reflects Jumper was never under appellee’s control but was, instead, the employee of Jimmy Sellers, who leased the rig to the appellee. … one time in their complaint alleged that Sellers was an agent of the appellee, they fail to argue the legal relationship between the two and instead argue the driver’s servant relationship to the appellee, claiming they established

In re Arkansas Rules for Minimum Continuing Legal Education & Regulations

317 Ark. 659 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 27, 1994

(A) There is hereby established the Arkansas Continuing Legal Education Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). … The Board may file a response as authorized by Rule 2-1. 7.06 DECISION BY THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT The findings of the Board shall not be reversed unless the Arkansas Supreme Court finds them to be clearly erroneous.

Tom Steele v. John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Arkansas

609 S.W.3d 357 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 15, 2020

However, our constitution established a different regime for each proposed amendment. This court cannot change the constitution. … Clearly, by packing these proposed changes to three different parts of the Arkansas Constitution it frustrates rather than enables the electors to vote on each amendment separately, as Article 19, section 22 requires.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 9, 2004

In my opinion, an alderman would clearly qualify as a "public servant" subject to this statute. … It is an established maxim that penal provisions are strictly construed and that "[n]othing will be taken as intended which is not clearly expressed and all doubts must be resolved in favor of the defendant." Bennett v.

Saul v. State

365 Ark. 77 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 26, 2006

In sum, Saul claims that the circumstantial evidence presented at trial clearly allows for other reasonable explanations consistent with innocence, and that the jury had to resort to surmise and conjecture to find him guilty … I think he’s qualified to start talking. He said he was cooking and he did. I’m going to let him talk about it.

Moltz v. Dalrymple

239 Ark. 393 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 3, 1965

For reversal of the decree, appellants urge that the evidence in the case clearly establishes that an encroachment exists. … Two highly qualified registered professional engineers testified at trial, Walter Combs who had surveyed for appellants, and Leo Tyra for appellee. Mr.

Ex parte Wildman

29 F. Cas. 1232 · United States District Court for the District of Arkansas · Jul 17, 1876

These provisions are clearly applicable to all persons not in any manner connected with the military or naval service of tlie government. … Courts-martial are tribunals established and recognized by the law.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 11, 2006

State law clearly vests the district court judge with some authority in appointing, controlling and directing the work of the clerks. Cf. Op. … The district judge clearly has hiring and firing authority pursuant to A.C.A. § 16-17-106 . But in my opinion, this does not establish the judge as the final policymaker on employment matters.

Cummings v. City of Fayetteville

294 Ark. 151 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 21, 1987

None of the directors named in the blank petition were made parties to the suit, although they were ostensibly the target of Cummings’ action and clearly have interests paramount to that of the city. … So, we question whether he has established he has a case. In Cummings’ complaint, he states he wants the court to declare the statute unconstitutional.

Sargent v. State

272 Ark. 366 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 27, 1981

Immunity was granted to Cecil and Roy in exchange for their agreement to testify in the separate trials of Kate Marie Sargent and Donald. … The evidence establishes these events: In the early morning hours of February 19, 1980, the body of Charlie Frank Sargent was found along a remote stretch of Woodson Lateral Road in Saline County.

Hunter v. Runyan

382 S.W.3d 643 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 2011

This court clearly stated in UHS of Arkansas that [o]ur declaratory judgment statute does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction. … The | ^record therefore clearly supports the circuit court’s finding regarding Shepherd’s purpose.

Leashebia Davis v. State of Arkansas

685 S.W.3d 909 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 11, 2024

The record before us establishes the following facts. I. … produce the result; and (2) [t]he conduct of the defendant was clearly insufficient to produce the result.”

Seay v. United States (In re Seay)

369 B.R. 423 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 16, 2007

Finally, no litigation or administrative costs may be awarded under § 7430 for those fees and costs incurred before a “qualified offer” is made (this limitation is discussed more thoroughly herein) if the United States establishes … The affidavits alone do not establish that there is a shortage of qualified tax attorneys to handle the tax issues, or a shortage of qualified bankruptcy attorneys to handle the bankruptcy issues; the affidavits do show that

Raper v. Braley

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 10, 2023

Thus, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.1 ECF No. 23, at 2-3. … to qualified immunity in her motion to dismiss.