HODGES V. STATE, 87 Ark. App. XVI (2004)

Hodges v. State. No. CA CR 03-1176.Court of Appeals of Arkansas. September 15, 2004. [EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] PITTMAN, J. Opinions not Designated for Publication affirmed.

Read More

MERCURY MARKETING v. STATE, 358 Ark. 319 (2004)

MERCURY MARKETING TECHNOLOGIES OF DELAWARE, INC.; Gointernet.net, Inc.; Neal Saferstein; Arthur Cohen; and Robert Rosenkranz v. STATE of Arkansas ex rel. Mike Beebe, Attorney General. 03-1328. 189 S.W.3d 414Supreme Court of Arkansas. Opinion delivered July 1, 2004. 1. TRADE PRACTICES — DECEPTIVE PRACTICES — PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. — Where evidence showed appellant was under FTC investigation […]

Read More

OLSTEN HLTH. SER. v. AR. HLTH. SER., 69 Ark. App. 313 (2000)

OLSTEN HEALTH SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT v. ARKANSAS HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION, APPELLEE CA 99-796 12 S.W.3d 656Court of Appeals of Arkansas Division IV Opinion Delivered March 15, 2000 1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROCEDURE — APPELLATE REVIEW — REVERSAL OR MODIFICATION OF AGENCY DECISION. — Under the Administrative Procedure Act, Ark. §§ 25-15-201 to 214 (Repl. 1996 and […]

Read More

IN RE ARKANSAS LAWYERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (Ark. 1-10-2008)

IN RE: THE ARKANSAS LAWYERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Supreme Court of Arkansas. Opinion Delivered January 10, 2008 PER CURIAM. On December 7, 2000, we established the Arkansas Lawyers Assistance Program (ALAP). Contemporaneously, we adopted rules for ALAP including Rule 2.D(1), which directs the ALAP Committee to establish policies and procedures after reasonable notice to the bench […]

Read More

BROWN v. WYATT, 89 Ark. App. 306 (2005)

Hugh BROWN v. Richard A. WYATT and Arkansas Women’s Center. No. CA 04-487. 202 S.W.3d 555Court of Appeals of Arkansas. Opinion delivered February 9, 2005. 1. JUDGMENT — WHEN SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED — SHIFTING BURDEN. — Summary judgment is to be granted by a trial court only when it is clear that there are no […]

Read More

HAYS v. STATE, 230 Ark. 731 (1959)

HAYS v. STATE No. 4941 324 S.W.2d 520Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered June 1, 1959. 1. HOMICIDE — FIRST DEGREE MURDER, WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. — Evidence surrounding killing in the commission of a robbery held amply sufficient to support verdict of death by electrocution. 2. HOMICIDE — CORPUS DELICTI — CAUSE OF […]

Read More

HARVEY v. MARR, 173 Ark. 90 (1927)

HARVEY v. MARR. 291 S.W. 981Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered March 14, 1927. 1. APPEAL AND ERROR — TEMPORARY ORDER. — In a suit for partition of an oil and gas lease, an order of court in vacation directing the receiver to pay one-half of the cost of standardizing the well and operating the […]

Read More

LYTLE v. ZEBOLD, 227 Ark. 431 (1957)

LYTLE v. ZEBOLD No. 5-1137 299 S.W.2d 74Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered February 25, 1957. 1. WILLS — WORDS AND PHRASES — CONSTRUCTION OF. — Language in a gift over of trust property, on conditions stipulated, “to the Board of Directors of the Wabbaseka Public Schools, now designated as School District Number 12 of […]

Read More

REA v. RUFF, 265 Ark. 678 (1979)

Leon REA et al v. Katherine RUFF et al No. 78-249 580 S.W.2d 471Supreme Court of Arkansas (Division II) Opinion delivered May 7, 1979 1. MOTIONS — MOTION TO SET ASIDE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT — FAILURE TO OBTAIN RULING THEREON CONSTITUTES WAIVER. — Where appellant filed a motion to set aside a declaratory judgment but did […]

Read More

LEE v. MARTINDALE, CA07-622 (Ark.App. 12-12-2007)

Wilma LEE, Appellant v. Mark MARTINDALE, M.D. et al, Appellee CA07-622Court of Appeals of Arkansas. Opinion Delivered December 12, 2007 Appeal from Saline Circuit. Appellee Mark Martindale’s motion to dismiss appeal is denied. Brief due within thirty days. Pittman, C.J., and Gladwin, Robbins, and Marshall, JJ., would grant. Heffley, J., not participating.

Read More

HARDIN v. MARSHALL, 176 Ark. 977 (1928)

HARDIN v. MARSHALL. 5 S.W.2d 325Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered April 9, 1928. 1. SALES — SEPARATE CONTRACT — RESERVATION OF TITLE. — Separate contracts for different purchases of furniture at different times, neither of which furnished a consideration for any other, cannot be regarded as an entire contract entitling the seller to repossess […]

Read More

SPARKMAN v. ARKANSAS DEPT. OF HUMAN SERV., CA05-1011 (Ark.App. 11-1-2006)

Ervin Ray SPARKMAN Aline Sparkman, Appellants v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee CA05-1011 242 S.W.3d 282Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division IV. Opinion Delivered November 1, 2006 Appeal from the Fulton County Circuit Court, [No. JV-2003-26-3], Hon. Stephen Choate, Circuit Judge. Affirmed. JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge Ervin Ray Sparkman and Aline Sparkman appeal from […]

Read More

DAVIS v. STATE, 2011 Ark. 6

Richard DAVIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent 10-955Supreme Court of Arkansas. Opinion Delivered January 13, 2011 Pro Se Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Lincoln County Circuit Court, LCV 2010-56, Hon. Jodi Raines Dennis, Judge], Appeal Dismissed; Motion Moot. PER CURIAM. In 1988, appellant Richard Davis was convicted by a jury of capital murder, aggravated […]

Read More

SPENCER v. PIERCE, 172 Ark. 108 (1926)

SPENCER v. PIERCE. 287 S.W. 1019Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered November 15, 1926. 1. EVIDENCE — PAROL CONTRADICTING WRITING. — A witness will not be permitted by parol evidence to contradict his own deed. 2. EVIDENCE — SECONDARY EVIDENCE. — A witness will not be permitted to testify as to the contents of a […]

Read More

IN RE DODRILL, 260 Ark. 223 (1976)

In Re Louis Art DODRILL No. 76-54 538 S.W.2d 549Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered July 12, 1976 1. ATTORNEY CLIENT — DISBARMENT OF ATTORNEYS — JURISDICTION. Proceedings involving disbarment of an attorney are civil in nature, and under Amendment 28 of the Ark. Const., and rules promulgated thereunder, the judicial branch of government, acting […]

Read More

SCOTT v. SCOTT, 86 Ark. App. 120 (2004)

161 S.W.3d 307 Robert SCOTT v. Rita SCOTT CA 03-692Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II. Opinion delivered April 28, 2004 1. APPEAL ERROR — DOMESTIC-RELATIONS DECISIONS — STANDARD OF REVIEW. — The appellate court reviews domestic-relations decisions de novo on the record; although review is de novo, the court will not reverse a finding […]

Read More