Case law

Woodward v. State

16 Ark. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 25, 1985

This distinction is most clearly demonstrated in United States v. Traylor, 656 F.2d 1326 (1981). … The first would have told the jury that the testimony of an informer who provides evidence for immunity from punishment must be examined with greater care than that of the other witnesses.

Barnes v. State

258 Ark. 565 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 6, 1975

The trial judge examined Barnes on the basic rules of evidence and trial procedure and appropriately found that he knew nothing about them and was not qualified to represent himself. … It is only necessary that a defendant be aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so the record will establish that the defendant knows what he is doing and his choice is made “with eyes open”.

Clark v. State

358 Ark. 469 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 23, 2004

Moreover, we will not reverse a circuit court’s factual determination on a motion for .new trial unless it is clearly erroneous, and the issue of witness credibility is for the circuit judge to weigh and assess. Id. … First, we do not believe that Simmons’s statement qualifies as a “third-party confession” because Simmons is not a third party to the crime.

Carton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

303 Ark. 568 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 12, 1990

Clearly, A.R.E. Rule 607 allows one to impeach her own witness. … “Thus a patient’s statement that he was struck by an automobile would qualify but not his statement that the car was driven through a red light.” Id.

Tri-Eagle Enterprises v. Regions Bank

2010 Ark. App. 64 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 20, 2010

The circuit court excluded Wojcik’s and Woody’s testimony, based on Regions’s arguments that the experts were not qualified and their opinions were unreliable. … Clearly, the arguments relate to Tri-Eagle’s defense and counterclaims for excess interest payments, which were distinct aspects of the case below.

Reap v. State

143 Ark. 81 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 22, 1920

The court held that the juror was qualified. The appellant accepted to the ruling of the court and made this ruling' one of the grounds of his motion for a new trial. … According to the rule established by this court in the above cases the trial court did not err in holding that C. W. Baldwin was qualified to serve as a juror. In the case of Collins v.

Arkansas Day Care Ass'n, Inc. v. Clinton

577 F. Supp. 388 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 22, 1983

The State has an obvious interest in inspection by qualified personnel. … Larson is clearly a First Amendment case and the test used fits comfortably with the issues in this lawsuit.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 19, 2005

The General Assembly established the Arkansas District Judge Retirement Fund in Act 1374 of 2003. The District Judge Retirement Fund replaces various local retirement plans for municipal judges with a state plan. … The enacted language clearly contemplates that the excess retained by the sponsoring government entity will be used to pay for district judge retirement.

Orsini v. State

340 Ark. 665 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 23, 2000

Clearly, however, this section of the FOIA sets a policy in favor of expeditious hearings on all FOIA requests. In the case of Furman v. … The remaining question then is whether Regulation 804 establishes an exemption for the documents requested.

Goodman v. Harness

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 16, 2022

First Amendment rights and that those rights were clearly established at the time, per the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Reisch. … Qualified immunity is therefore denied as to the allegations concerning the “Searcy County OEM” Facebook page. 2.

Whitley v. Baptist Health

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 29, 2021

The Court's ruling on liability leaves too many issues open to qualify as a final decision certifiable under Rule 54(b). … And in the Union County case, clearly controlling Iowa law existed. 525 F.3d at 646-47. Not so here.

Coker v. Coker

423 S.W.3d 599 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 11, 2012

However, this court long ago set out what evidence is necessary to establish such indignities as a ground for divorce: It is for the court to determine whether or not the alleged offending spouse has been guilty of acts or … But, the majority has now cited with authority an opinion that conflated two separate statutory grounds for divorce into one and now allows adultery to qualify as grounds for indignities.

Light v. Blackwell

472 F. Supp. 333 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1979

Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974), and call this Court’s attention to the Supreme Court’s statement on page 663, 94 S.Ct. on pages 1355-1356 of its opinion which reads: It is also well established … The wrongdoing must amount to a deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Anateus Lineal 1948, Inc. v. United States

366 F. Supp. 118 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 9, 1973

This argument ignores all the other operations of the plaintiff as established by the evidence. … It was necessary that the ■ plaintiff hire better qualified and more employees to carry out the exempt functions of the plaintiff.

Steward v. Statler

371 Ark. 351 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 1, 2007

. § 28-40-102 (b) (Repl. 2004), a probate proceeding could not be “commenced” until (l) a petition for appointment had been filed, (2) the court determined that the individual was qualified to act on behalf of the estate, … Any interpretation of an act must be aimed at determining whether retroactive effect is stated or implied so clearly and unequivocally as to eliminate any doubt. Id.

Hendrickson v. Leipzig

715 F. Supp. 1443 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 13, 1989

(b) However, information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery or use in any such action merely because they were *1445 presented during the proceedings … Thus, Arkansas has clearly expressed its policy that such information is confidential and can only be disclosed under narrow exceptions.

Sykes v. Williams

373 Ark. 236 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 17, 2008

Strict construction is narrow construction and requires that nothing be taken as intended that is not clearly expressed. Hapney v. Rheem Mfg. Co., supra. … A finding that Baxter qualified as a prime contractor for purposes of Arkansas Code Annotated section ll-9-402(a) would afford Sykes no relief at this stage, as he has elected to sue in tort.

Cunningham v. State

429 S.W.3d 201 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 5, 2013

Jurors are presumed unbiased and qualified to serve. Burton v. State, 2011 Ark. 351 , 2011 WL 4092783 . … Moreover, appellant fails to establish that he was even prejudiced when the transcript was not admitted because he fails to demonstrate how the alleged disparity in police interview techniques had any relevance to the charges

Krecker v. Prosecuting Attorney

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 14, 2020

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976), established the absolute immunity of a prosecutor from a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” … entitled to qualified immunity).

Ann Jenkins v. Mercy Hospital Rogers

633 S.W.3d 758 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 12, 2021

. §§ 16-123-101 to -108 (Repl. 2016 & Supp. 2021), survives either because Mercy does not qualify for the religious- organization exemption or because the exemption is unconstitutional. … Nor has Jenkins alleged facts to establish that she justifiably relied on the statements made by Mercy.