Case law

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tucker

353 Ark. 730 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 2003

When a defendant makes an argument that the verdict is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence because the evidence is insufficient to establish one element of a prima facie case to support the cause of action, … In fact, if the expert' testimony established anything, it established that the mis-fill was not the proximate cause of his death.

Ladarius Burnette v. State of Arkansas

625 S.W.3d 382 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 5, 2021

Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof that will produce in the trier of fact a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established. Z.T. v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 282. … There may be mental health inpatient treatment facilities that defendant qualifies for and are available to him in the Juvenile Division of Circuit Court.

Coffee v. Zolliecoffer

93 Ark. App. 61 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 14, 2005

That finding is not clearly erroneous, and we must affirm. This conclusion is based on the holding of our state’s highest court, and I am bound by its reasoning. … With this pronouncement of law, we have thrown otherwise qualified parents into a subjective minefield pitting them against possibly more mature, more capable, or more affluent grandparents, siblings, or others.

Leep v. Railway Co.

23 L.R.A. 264 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 3, 1894

They clearly come within the power of the legislature to protect the rights of persons, prevent wrongs, and enforce honesty and fair dealing in the transactions of individuals. … Such an amendment of the charters of corporations is clearly unjust to the corporators. The other construction' is more reasonable-.

Johnson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

149 Ark. 418 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 4, 1921

King at first denied that she wrote the letters, but later, when they were presented to her on cross-examination, she qualified this statement by saying that she did not remember whether she had written them or not. … cause with reasonable diligence, for that is clearly tbe measure of an attorney’s duty to bis client.

Jimenez v. State

83 Ark. App. 377 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 12, 2003

As the testimony recited above clearly indicates, appellant was quite aware that she was plotting a murder, and repeatedly told Steve that she wanted him to kill both police officers. … On this record, we think appellant has failed either to establish any violation of Brady or to demonstrate that any prejudice ensued.

Nowlin v. Sylvester

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 23, 2023

Nowlin contends he needs transcripts and other documents to file (presumably a habeas petition) in federal court to establish his actual innocence. (ECF No. 12 at 4). … Univ. of Ark., 889 F.3d 471, 473 (8th Cir. 2018)(Eleventh Amendment establishes that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own 2 In certain circumstances, the state must provide

Sanford v. Robinson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 12, 2024

False Imprisonment/False Arrest Claim An officer is entitled to “qualified immunity for a warrantless arrest if the arrest was supported by at least ‘arguable probable cause.’” … An officer is entitled to “qualified immunity for a warrantless arrest if the arrest was supported by at least ‘arguable probable cause.’” Joseph, 712 F.3d at 1226.

Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

305 Ark. 530 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 20, 1991

Clearly, our case law establishes that foreign corporations do not become Arkansas residents by registering to do business here, and they are, therefore, entitled to the thirty days to respond to a complaint provided by Rule … However, it is in this “equal protection” argument that Wal-Mart cites the practice of attorneys in the Benton County Circuit Court of allowing foreign corporations qualified to do business in this state only twenty days

Leonard Fulmer v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child

660 S.W.3d 347 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 8, 2023

6 termination.11 Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof that will produce a firm conviction in the finder of fact regarding the allegation sought to be established … Even when it seemed as if he understood the answers to those questions at the termination hearing, he qualified them with “I guess.”

Capitol Life & Accident Insurance v. Phelps

76 Ark. App. 428 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 13, 2002

The chancellor found that appellant’s proof on this point was not convincing, and we cannot say that such a finding was clearly erroneous. … Facts established by the testimony of an interested witness, or one whose testimony might be biased, cannot be considered as undisputed or uncontradicted.

In Re Johnson

460 B.R. 234 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 28, 2011

Investments, Inc., 370 Ark. 220 , 258 S.W.3d 374 (2007), establishes authority for its position. … In 1864, Congress placed into law an act that established a national banking system.

Tapp v. Ligon

441 S.W.3d 4 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 18, 2014

Continuing with Turner as her lawyer, on March 13, 2007, an Agreed Order was entered establishing Schmidt’s paternity of K.S. and setting a hearing for August 30, 2007, on all other issues. … Pursuant to the Procedures, conduct involving deceit or misrepresentation qualifies as “serious misconduct.” Id. § 17(B)(3). Moreover, Tapp has a disciplinary record with the Committee.

Kirkendall v. Harbor Insurance

698 F. Supp. 768 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 21, 1988

This document clearly indicates that all blood or plasma should be tested for HTLV-III antibody by ELISA as soon as such testing became commercially available. … See Joint Statement on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Related to Transfusion, supra.

Moore v. State

92 Ark. App. 453 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 12, 2005

The Powers court further stated that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the State from using peremptory challenges to exclude otherwise qualified and unbiased jurors solely by reason of race, and that racial discrimination … Clearly, the trial court was mistaken in thinking that two black jurors had been seated. In fact, only one had been seated.

Jenkins v. APS Insurance, LLC

431 S.W.3d 356 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 18, 2013

When Perry returned to work the following Monday, he discovered the missing and the deleted files and was notified that Donley had established D&A and that Jenkins had left APS’s employment to join D&A. … Specifically, her argument is that the information misappropriated does not qualify as “trade secrets” as that term is defined in the Act.

David Hightower v. State of Arkansas

704 S.W.3d 381 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 29, 2025

On appeal, Hightower couches his claims as eight separate points, but essentially it boils down to two: (1) because Brasuell did not qualify as the victim for purposes of Ark. … The State argues that the no-contact provision is a condition of Hightower’s suspended sentence, and “[a] circuit court’s power to impose terms and conditions of suspension is established in Ark.

Strawhacker v. State

304 Ark. 726 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 4, 1991

The photographs introduced in this case easily qualify under the Richmond, Earl, and Cash standards. … An offense is included within another offense, if it is established by proof of the same or less than all the elements required to establish the commission of the other offense. Id.

Guirlando v. City Tel-Coin Company, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 29, 2022

A “clearly erroneous” standard of review applies to the portions of a report and recommendation that are not objected to. See Grinder v. … Judge Bryant also found that a determination regarding whether CTC is entitled to qualified immunity cannot be made at this time because the record is insufficient.

Southwestern Transportation Co. v. King

240 Ark. 309 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 1966

Ann. § 73-1762 (Repl. 1957) provides in part: “(a) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing the whole or any part of the operations covered by the … Here, all three factors have been shown; so public convenience and necessity have been clearly established. Affirmed.