Case law

City of Little Rock v. Linn

245 Ark. 260 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 30, 1968

We clearly pointed out in that opinion that before the street could be closed it must first be shown that the portion being closed was not required for public purposes. … We also clearly stated that the action in that case would not be res judicata of any nature litigation between the same parties instigated under § 19-2304.

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

548 S.W.3d 865 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 25, 2018

On appeal, Alecia argues that the termination order should be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to establish statutory grounds for termination. We affirm. … We hold that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that DHS proved the subsequent-factors grounds under Ark.

Teas v. State

266 Ark. 572 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 1, 1979

In my opinion, they were clearly a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan. … This is hardly a basis for saying that the holding of the trial court was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

State Ex Rel. Purcell v. Nelson

246 Ark. 210 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 24, 1969

Since the trial court exercised its discretion in a matter clearly within its jurisdiction, its action is not subject to review at this time. … Before a master is appointed, the main issue establishing the rights of the parties should be determined so that definite directions can be given to the master for his guidance. Hicks v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 2, 1990

If a majority of the qualified voters . . . approve the rate of tax . . . then the tax . . . shall be collected as provided by law. … The court held that this scheme violated the Kentucky Constitution, stating: The Tax Increment Act is even more clearly in violation of the constitution.

Marlin v. Harrison, Receiver

214 Ark. 342 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 20, 1948

On the other hand, an organization endeavoring to qualify, but lacking capital, may be easily persuaded to accept an appraisement in circumstances where, as a legitimate investment of money on hand, the mortgage offered would … Clearly the deposit fund is an asset of the Company, pledged in the first instance to payment of policies, but available secondarily to pay debts.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 3, 2004

(b) In addition, the board is authorized to establish appropriate rules, regulations, and standards defining or limiting the emergency medical procedures or services that may be rendered by a certified emergency medical technician … This analysis is clearly consistent with my views as expressed in Opinion No. 2004-063 .

Kelly v. Martin

433 S.W.3d 896 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 2014

In its oral ruling, the circuit court found that the evidence established that Judge Fox had been delinquent on his annual license fee. … Clearly, when an attorney is suspended, his or her privilege to practice law temporarily ceases. In that regard I agree with the majority.

Kelly v. Martin

Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 2014

In its oral ruling, the circuit court found that the evidence established that Judge Fox had been delinquent on his annual license fee. … Clearly, when an attorney is suspended, his or her privilege to practice law temporarily ceases. In that regard I agree with the majority.

In Re Estate of Keathley

367 Ark. 568 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 2, 2006

We review probate proceedings de novo and we will not reverse the decision of the probate court unless it is clearly erroneous. Burns, 364 Ark. 280 , 219 S.W.3d 134 . … As pointed out above, Shelton has never been declared a legitimate heir and, consequently, he does not qualify as an interested person within the Probate Code.

Jones v. Freeman

270 F. Supp. 989 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 24, 1967

The defendants’ primary contention is that the instant suit, to enjoin them as officers of the United States, is actually against the United States itself, and as such is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … However, the only acts alleged were clearly within the conduct prescribed by the statutes and regulations. There is no allegation of any specific acts of harassment or intimidation.

McKeown v. State

197 Ark. 454 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 1939

In appellant’s brief it is urged that tbe law’s intent was “to keep closed on Sunday all stores and general merehándise establishments, including dram shops and saloons. … If a majority of the qualified voters opposed the sale of beer, such sale was prohibited.

Bennie Burks, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Oliver Lee Burks v. Hunter L. Brown, M.D., and Robert T. Emery, M.D.

2023 Ark. App. 562 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 6, 2023

First, the majority writes that the order on appeal dismissed the case because the appellant failed “to come forward with proof from a qualified expert to establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that some … Conversely, the majority qualifies the medical record as so “scant with detail” that “the exact mechanism of the injury to Oliver Burks’s aorta is unknown.”

Farmers Equipment Company v. Miller

252 Ark. 1092 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 17, 1972

There it was clearly deminstrated that there was no basis for the opinion of a witness of the estimated cost of certain excavation work. … That testimony was clearly hearsay and inadmissible as evidence of the agency.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 14, 2000

Both reflect that the SBA felt the proposed legislation "authorizes the Agency to establish national interest rates" and "negates the usury law in Arkansas." … It is well established that an agency's interpretation of statutes pertinent to its mission will be upheld unless clearly wrong. See, e.g., ACW Inc. v. Weiss, 329 Ark. 302 , 947 S.W.2d 770 (1997).

Walton v. Voss

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 11, 2022

reasons, Defendants alternatively argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Court, having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation, finds that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Krout v.

Gillean v. State

478 S.W.3d 255 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 9, 2015

In exchange for immunity from prosecution, Stark agreed to testify against Gillean. … A defendant who is sentenced within the statutory range—and short of the maximum sentence—cannot establish prejudice. Tate v.

Vaughan v. Bowie

30 Ark. 278 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1875

Harbison, 29 Ark., 340, it was held that for a tax clearly illegal on its face, the remedy was at law., and this court declined to review the case of Floyd v. … If the rule established in Floyd v.

John James Baker v. Denise Binns Baker

678 S.W.3d 608 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 1, 2023

The burden is on the party who asserts an interest in property to establish that it is separate property not subject to division. Aldridge v. Aldridge, 28 Ark. App. 175, 177, 773 S.W.2d 103, 104 (1980). … Alimony may be awarded under proper circumstances concerning rehabilitation to either party in fixed installments for a specified period so that the payments qualify as periodic payments within the meaning of the Internal

Davis v. Dillmeier Enterprises, Inc.

330 Ark. 545 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 13, 1997

It was stated unequivocally that the exclusive-remedy doctrine of the Workers’ Compensation Act “in no way conflicts with or bars a properly established or alleged claim under the Civil Rights Act.” … Clearly, the combination of compensation benefits and additional benefits are designed to pay the employee a total amount equal to his or her average salary, thus making the employee whole.