Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1908–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tobin v. Jenkins
green
2 sentences1943Tobin v. Jenkins, 29 Ark. 151 ; Taylor v. McClintock, 87 Ark. 243 , 112 S. W. 405 ; Hyatt v. Wroten, 184 Ark. 847 , 43 S. W. 2d 726 . 1917Testimony was introduced on behalf of the appellees tending to show her idiosyncrasies and the condition of her mind and body several years prior to and at the time of the making of the will and until she died. (1) In Taylor v. McClintock, 87 Ark. 243, 275 , it is said: “Hence, it is that, in order to determine the capacity of the testator’s mind and its true action afi the time the will is made, a wide range of inquiry is permissible into facts and circumstances, whether before or after the time of making the will, the better to enable the jury to determine the probable state of his mind, and | 3 | 1908–1943 |
Taylor v. McClintock
green
2 sentences1943Tobin v. Jenkins, 29 Ark. 151 ; Taylor v. McClintock, 87 Ark. 243 , 112 S. W. 405 ; Hyatt v. Wroten, 184 Ark. 847 , 43 S. W. 2d 726 . 1917Testimony was introduced on behalf of the appellees tending to show her idiosyncrasies and the condition of her mind and body several years prior to and at the time of the making of the will and until she died. (1) In Taylor v. McClintock, 87 Ark. 243, 275 , it is said: “Hence, it is that, in order to determine the capacity of the testator’s mind and its true action afi the time the will is made, a wide range of inquiry is permissible into facts and circumstances, whether before or after the time of making the will, the better to enable the jury to determine the probable state of his mind, and | 2 | 1917–1943 |
Conte v. State
green
1 sentence2015As the court in Lovasco explained, “[T]he decision to file criminal charges, with the awesome consequences it entails, requires consideration of a wide range of factors in addition to the strength of the Government’s case, in order to determine 24 Cite as 2015 Ark. 220 whether prosecution would be in the public interest. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railroad v. Anderson
neutral
1 sentence1965Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railroad v. Anderson, 39 Ark. 167 , and has allowed a wide range of factors to be considered in determining fair market value. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Hyatt v. Wroten
green
2 sentences1943Tobin v. Jenkins, 29 Ark. 151 ; Taylor v. McClintock, 87 Ark. 243 , 112 S. W. 405 ; Hyatt v. Wroten, 184 Ark. 847 , 43 S. W. 2d 726 . 1943Tobin v. Jenkins, 29 Ark. 151 ; Taylor v. McClintock, 87 Ark. 243 , 112 S. W. 405 ; Hyatt v. Wroten, 184 Ark. 847 , 43 S. W. 2d 726 . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.