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.
32 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1917–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carey v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Randle v. State, 2016 Ark. 228 , 493 S.W.3d 309 ; Ransom v. State, 2009 Ark. 215 (per curiam); Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332 , 596 S.W.2d 688 (1980). 2023See Randle v. State, 2016 Ark. 228 , 493 S.W.3d 309 ; Ransom v. State, 2009 Ark. 215 (per curiam); Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332 , 596 S.W.2d 688 (1980). | 7 | 12 |
Boyle v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Petitioner’s signature Subscribed and sworn to before me the undersigned officer this _ day of _,20_ Notary or other officer “This court has held that the verification requirement for a postconviction relief petition ‘is of substantive importance to prevent perjury.’ ” Id. at 3, 455 S.W.3d at 832 (quoting Boyle v. State, 362 Ark. 248, 250 , 208 S.W.3d 134,136 (2005)). 2016Petitioner’s signature Subscribed and sworn to before me the undersigned officer this _ day of _,20_ Notary or other officer “This court has held that the verification requirement for a postconviction relief petition ‘is of substantive importance to prevent perjury.’ ” Id. at 3, 455 S.W.3d at 832 (quoting Boyle v. State, 362 Ark. 248, 250 , 208 S.W.3d 134,136 (2005)). | 7 | 8 |
Bradley v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Bradley v. State, 2015 Ark. 144 , 459 S.W.3d 302 . 2025Bradley v. State, 2015 Ark. 144 , 459 S.W.3d 302 . | 3 | 7 |
Randle v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Randle v. State, 2016 Ark. 228 , 493 S.W.3d 309 ; Ransom v. State, 2009 Ark. 215 (per curiam); Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332 , 596 S.W.2d 688 (1980). 2023See Randle v. State, 2016 Ark. 228 , 493 S.W.3d 309 ; Ransom v. State, 2009 Ark. 215 (per curiam); Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332 , 596 S.W.2d 688 (1980). | 1 | 3 |
Shaw v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Shaw v. State, 363 Ark. 156 , 211 S.W.3d 506 (2005) (per curiam). 2010See Shaw v. State, 363 Ark. 156 , 211 S.W.3d 506 (2005) (per curiam). | 1 | 2 |
Hendrix v. Stategreen1 sentence2016(Emphasis added.) We have specifically held that the petitioner must sign the petition and execute the requisite affidavit or verification to comply with the verification requirement of Rule 2 Cite as 2016 Ark. 168 37.1(c). | 1 | 1 |
McMickle v. Griffingreen2 sentences2007This court “reviews issues of statutory interpretation de novo, because it is for this court to determine the meaning of a statute.” McMickle v. Griffin, 369 Ark. 318, 323 , 254 S.W.3d 729, 736 (2007). 2007This court “reviews issues of statutory interpretation de novo, because it is for this court to determine the meaning of a statute.” McMickle v. Griffin, 369 Ark. 318, 323 , 254 S.W.3d 729, 736 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stewart v. State
green
2 sentences2015Slocum, 2014 Ark. 178 ; Stewart v. State, 2014 Ark. 85 (per curiam); Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 312 (per curiam); Williamson v. State, 2012 Ark. 170 (per curiam); Tucker v. State, 2011 Ark. 543 (per curiam); see Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332 , 596 S.W.2d 688 (1980). 2015Butler v. State, 2014 Ark. 380 , 2014 WL 4649476 (per curiam); Stewart v. State, 2014 Ark. 85 , 2014 WL 689043 (per curiam); Paige v. State, 2013 Ark. 135 , 2013 WL 1281833 (per curiam). | 6 | 2014–2015 |
Fowler v. State
green
2 sentences2015Stewart v. State, 2014 Ark. 85 (per curiam); Fowler v. State, 2013 Ark. 340 (per curiam); Paige v. State, 2013 Ark. 135 (per curiam); Williamson v. State, 2012 Ark. 170 (per curiam). 2014Fowler, 2013 Ark. 340 ; Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 312 (per curiam); Williamson, 2012 Ark. 170 ; Tucker v. State, 2011 Ark. 543 (per curiam); see Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332 , 596 S.W.2d 688 (1980). | 3 | 2014–2015 |
Brown v. State
neutral
2 sentences2021Id. 2015The Shaw court granted the State’s motion, 3 Cite as 2015 Ark. 97 observing that a circuit court cannot consider issues in a petition which does not comply with the verification requirement of the Rule. | 2 | 2015–2021 |
Butler v. State
green
2 sentences2020Butler v. State, 2014 Ark. 380 . 2015Butler v. State, 2014 Ark. 380 , 2014 WL 4649476 (per curiam); Stewart v. State, 2014 Ark. 85 , 2014 WL 689043 (per curiam); Paige v. State, 2013 Ark. 135 , 2013 WL 1281833 (per curiam). | 2 | 2015–2020 |
Branning v. State
green
2 sentences2014Branning, 2014 Ark. 256 , 2014 WL 2463083 . 2014Appellant’s signature on the amended petition was not notarized, and there was no verification that the facts stated in the petition were true, correct, and complete as required by the Rule. 3 Cite as 2014 Ark. 256 The verification requirement for a postconviction petition is of substantive importance to prevent perjury. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Ian Baylee Moytoy v. State of Arkansas
green
1 sentence2023Moytoy v. State, 2021 Ark. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re Howard
neutral
1 sentence2015Recently, in Brown v. State, 2015 Ark. 7 , 2015 WL 222652 , Justice Danielson’s concurrence detailed this court’s departure in 2005 from construing the verification requirement in Rule 37 as a procedural rule to construing it as a jurisdictional rule. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Slocum v. State
green
1 sentence2015Slocum, 2014 Ark. 178 ; Stewart v. State, 2014 Ark. 85 (per curiam); Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 312 (per curiam); Williamson v. State, 2012 Ark. 170 (per curiam); Tucker v. State, 2011 Ark. 543 (per curiam); see Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332 , 596 S.W.2d 688 (1980). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Worthem v. State
green
1 sentence2006Wothem at 810 , 66 S.W.3d at 666 (citing Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332 , 596 S.W.2d 688 (1980)); Boyle v. State, 362 Ark. 248 , 208 S.W.3d 134 (2005) (per curiam); Shaw v. State, 363 Ark. 156 , 211 S.W.3d 506 (2005) (per curiam). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Saline County v. Kinkead
neutral
1 sentence1917The principles announced in Saline County v. Kinhead, 84 Ark. 329 , and Van Hook v. McNeil Monument Co., 107 Ark. 292 , settle the proposition that the statute requiring a verification of a claim presented against the county is not jurisdictional. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Van Hook v. McNeil Monument Co.
neutral
1 sentence1917The principles announced in Saline County v. Kinhead, 84 Ark. 329 , and Van Hook v. McNeil Monument Co., 107 Ark. 292 , settle the proposition that the statute requiring a verification of a claim presented against the county is not jurisdictional. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.