Case law

Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Meyer

106 Ark. 91 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 9, 1912

If we should give to those qualifying words of the policy the meaning that is now claimed by defendant they were intended to have, there would be scarcely any limit to their nullifying influence. … The certificate was not introduced in evidence by plaintiff for the purpose of establishing the truth of its contents.

Baptist Health Med. Sys. v. Rutledge

488 S.W.3d 507 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 17, 2016

There is clearly a present and ongoing injury to the Hospitals in that the Arkansas Peer Review Fairness Act (the “Act”) creates new standards with which the Hospitals must comply during the peer-review process. … Kinney, Hospital Peer Review of Physicians: Does Statutory Immunity Increase Risk of Unwarranted Professional Injury?, 13 Mich. St. U. J. Med. & L. 57, 79 (2009).

Grogg v. Colley Home Center, Inc.

283 Ark. 120 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1984

It is not disputed that Colley was never properly qualified through the Secretary of State’s office to do business in Oklahoma, however, Colley did have a mobile home dealer’s license from the State of Oklahoma for its Roland … We found no particular act would establish one state’s contacts as being more significant than the other.

Potts v. Hay

229 Ark. 830 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 22, 1958

the Policemen’s Union was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), some of whose aims and objectives are: (1) to refuse to cross or interfere with a picket line established … No rule of construction should ever be used to defeat the clearly expressed language of the document. The Railway Labor Act (U.S.C.A.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 12, 2008

Given that the records are kept by the City, were written by city officials and pertain to a city employee, I believe the documents in question clearly qualify as "public records" under this definition. … State , 340 Ark. 665 , 13 S.W.3d 167 (2000), it is the burden of an individual resisting disclosure to establish that his "privacy interests outweighed that of the public's under the circumstances presented."

Powhatan Cemetery Ass'n v. Phillips

90 Ark. App. 424 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 6, 2005

We will not reverse a trial court’s finding regarding the existence of an easement unless the finding is clearly erroneous. Id., 67 S.W.3d 598 . … Appellant’s final argument is that the trial court erred in using the doctrine of estoppel to establish the easement.

Orantes v. Orantes

381 S.W.3d 758 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 14, 2011

When at least there’s at hand a legally qualified custodial parent, or a person that could be a custodial parent. … This court reviews child-custody cases de novo, but will only reverse if the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Stehle v.

McWhorter v. McWhorter

351 Ark. 622 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 6, 2003

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case, and its findings were not clearly erroneous; we, therefore, affirm. … (s) (if any) present with you at the gaming establishment; and 4) the amount you won or lost. . .

First National Bank v. Arkansas State Bank Commissioner

301 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 18, 1989

The pertinent legislation regarding the procedure of establishing a full service branch office is contained in Ark. … In this case, the commissioner clearly gave FNB notice of BNA’s branch bank application, which FNB protested.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 16, 2010

Included within the category of "capital improvements of a public nature" are "municipal buildings," "police facilities" and "prisons" 2 — resources I interpret as clearly including a jail serving a city and a county pursuant … Nevertheless, only a finder of fact could ultimately establish this to be the case. Assistant Attorney General Jack Druff prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 16, 2001

City Of Stuttgart, 312 Ark. 97 , 847 S.W.2d 710 (1993) (lease agreement containing an amortization schedule deemed clearly a sale in violation of Article 16, § 1). … No. 2001-156 , these provisions are qualified by several constitutional amendments. Amendment 65 provides in pertinent part: 1.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 3, 2006

Even assuming a county might be authorized, with the permission referenced in the statute just quoted, to establish a for-profit racetrack, I should note that the county's establishment of such an enterprise might well jeopardize … Again, the question of whether the proposed enterprise at issue in your request would qualify as a "recreational service" is one of fact that only a court could resolve.

Nash v. Little Rock Housing Authority

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 20, 2021

raise broad immunity concepts and federal statutes to meet their burden of establishing a colorable federal defense. … This may be true, but the problem for Defendants is that this qualified privilege is a creature of Arkansas state law. Defendants also assert a right to immunity. Id. at 10.

Addington v. State

2 Ark. App. 7 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 27, 1981

It may be argued that any defendant who waives his right to counsel should not have done so and that he would have been better off had he had the services of a qualified attorney. … The Supreme Court in that case held that the record was insufficient to establish the fact that following his appearance at a preliminary hearing he had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 12, 2001

This follows, in my opinion, from a reading of Section 2 as a whole, consistent with established rules of statutory construction. See generally Chism v. … This would afford an opportunity to vote twice for the judicial candidates, an opportunity clearly not contemplated by Act 1789.

Graham v. Sisco

248 Ark. 6 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 1970

It will be time to explore the issue now being argued by the appellee when it is clearly defined by the pleadings or by the proof. … It may be that an experienced surgical nurse, though not qualified as a medically knowledgeable expert, might establish a prima facie case for the plaintiffs on the basis of having observed a hundred similar operations.

Roberts v. Priest

341 Ark. 813 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 7, 2000

The standards which this court employs in making this determination are well established: On the one hand, it is not required that the ballot title contain a synopsis of the amendment or statute. Sturdy v. … However, it is clearly misleading as to the scope and import of Section Two of the proposed amendment.

Stock v. Harris

193 Ark. 114 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 9, 1936

Since the passage of § 3 of act 116 of the Acts of 1929 declaring that members of county central committees, and the chairman and secretary thereof are officers within the meaning of § 7020, supra, it clearly follows that … W. 30 , to the effect that where jurisdiction is not conferred or regulated by statute, the courts have no power to interfere with the judgment of constituted authority of established political parties regarding party government

Lion Oil Co. v. Marsh

220 Ark. 678 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 2, 1952

No agreement was reached and on April 30th, 1952, the employees began a strike at the plant and established picket lines at all entrances. … the federal constitution or statutes, because they could, under the terms of the agreement they are attempting to alter, have given appellant 60 days notice and thereby placed themselves in position to picket with full immunity

Beard v. Ford Motor Credit Co.

41 Ark. App. 174 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 31, 1993

Rattler was not qualified to testify as to how repossessed cars are generally sold and in particular how appellant’s car was sold. … In light of the evidence, we cannot say the trial court’s finding that the sale was commercially reasonable is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.