clean-up doctrine in Arkansas

23 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2019 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Bright v. Gassgreen arkctapp · 1992 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1999–2001 2 sentences 2001See Fulcher v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co., 164 Ark. 261 , 261 S.W. 645 (1924); see also Bright v. Gass, 38 Ark. 1999Bright v. Gass, 38 Ark.	1	2
Ludwig v. Bella Casa, LLCgreen ark · 2010 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011See Ludwig v. Bella Casa, LLC, 2010 Ark. 435 , 372 S.W.3d 792 ; First Nat’l Bank v. Cruthis, 360 \|nArk. 528, 203 S.W.3d 88 (2005); Nat’l Bank of Ark. v. River Crossing Partners, LLC, 2010 Ark. 2011See Ludwig v. Bella Casa, LLC, 2010 Ark. 435 , 372 S.W.3d 792 ; First Nat’l Bank v. Cruthis, 360 \|nArk. 528, 203 S.W.3d 88 (2005); Nat’l Bank of Ark. v. River Crossing Partners, LLC, 2010 Ark.	1	1
Fulcher v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co.green ark · 1924 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See Fulcher v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co., 164 Ark. 261 , 261 S.W. 645 (1924); see also Bright v. Gass, 38 Ark. 2001See Fulcher v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co., 164 Ark. 261 , 261 S.W. 645 (1924); see also Bright v. Gass, 38 Ark.	1	1
Fox v. Foxgreen arkctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000See Fox v. Fox, 68 Ark.	1	1
Roach v. Concord Boat Corp.green ark · 1994 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000See Roach v. Concord Boat Corp., 317 Ark. 474 , 880 S.W.2d 305 (1994); Liles v. Liles, 289 Ark. 159 , 711 S.W.2d 447 (1986). 2000See Roach v. Concord Boat Corp., 317 Ark. 474 , 880 S.W.2d 305 (1994); Liles v. Liles, 289 Ark. 159 , 711 S.W.2d 447 (1986).	1	1
Arkansas State Medical Board v. Leipziggreen ark · 1989 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000See Arkansas State Medical Bd. v. Leipzig, 299 Ark. 71 , 770 S.W.2d 661 (1989); Daley v. Digby, 272 Ark. 267 , 613 S.W.2d 589 (1981); and Pinckney v. Mass Merchandisers, Inc., 16 Ark.App. 151 , 698 S.W.2d 310 (1985). 2000See Arkansas State Medical Bd. v. Leipzig, 299 Ark. 71 , 770 S.W.2d 661 (1989); Daley v. Digby, 272 Ark. 267 , 613 S.W.2d 589 (1981); and Pinckney v. Mass Merchandisers, Inc., 16 Ark.App. 151 , 698 S.W.2d 310 (1985).	1	1
Stolz v. Franklingreen ark · 1975 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See Stolz v. Franklin, 258 Ark. 999 , 531 S.W.2d 1 (1975). 1986See Stolz v. Franklin, 258 Ark. 999 , 531 S.W.2d 1 (1975).	1	1
White v. Cliff Peck Chevrolet, Inc.green ark · 1979 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (23)

Case	Cited	Years
Douthitt v. Douthitt green ark · 1996 2 sentences 2016Douthitt v. Douthitt, 326 Ark. 372 , 930 S.W.2d 371 (1996), The cleanup doctrine provides that, once a court of equity acquires jurisdiction over a case, it may decide all other issues, legal or equitable, Colclasure, 290 Ark. 585 , 720 S.W.2d 916 (1986), Since amendment 80 was enacted, the clean-up doctrine has disappeared because any circuit court now has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear all justiciable matters not assigned elsewhere, and it has the power to grant all remedies to the parties before it, See McDaniel, Charles Dr., Jr., First National Bank of Dewitt v. Cruthis: An Analysis o 2016Douthitt v. Douthitt, 326 Ark. 372 , 930 S.W.2d 371 (1996), The cleanup doctrine provides that, once a court of equity acquires jurisdiction over a case, it may decide all other issues, legal or equitable, Colclasure, 290 Ark. 585 , 720 S.W.2d 916 (1986), Since amendment 80 was enacted, the clean-up doctrine has disappeared because any circuit court now has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear all justiciable matters not assigned elsewhere, and it has the power to grant all remedies to the parties before it, See McDaniel, Charles Dr., Jr., First National Bank of Dewitt v. Cruthis: An Analysis o	6	1999–2019
Bierbaum v. City of Hamburg green ark · 1977 2 sentences 1979The chancellor could, under the clean-up doctrine, have entertained the action as amended even though the remedy sought became “legal” as opposed to “equitable. ” Bierbaum v. City of Hamburg, 262 Ark. 532 , 559 S.W.2d 20 (1977). 1979The chancellor could, under the clean-up doctrine, have entertained the action as amended even though the remedy sought became “legal” as opposed to “equitable. ” Bierbaum v. City of Hamburg, 262 Ark. 532 , 559 S.W.2d 20 (1977).	5	1979–1994
Liles v. Liles green ark · 1986 2 sentences 1996In Liles v. Liles, 289 Ark. 159 , 711 S.W.2d 447 (1986), this court established a test for determining when a chancery court’s jurisdiction over a legal claim pursuant to the clean-up doctrine is proper. 1996In Liles v. Liles, 289 Ark. 159 , 711 S.W.2d 447 (1986), this court established a test for determining when a chancery court’s jurisdiction over a legal claim pursuant to the clean-up doctrine is proper.	4	1994–2000
Stokes v. Stokes green ark · 2016 2 sentences 2019However, we recently explained in Stokes v. Stokes, that “since amendment 80 was enacted, the clean- up doctrine has disappeared because any circuit court now has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear all justiciable matters not assigned elsewhere, and it has the power to grant all remedies to the parties before it.” 2016 Ark. 182 , at 5 n.3, 491 S.W.3d 113 , 118 n.3 (emphasis added). 2019However, we recently explained in Stokes v. Stokes, that “since amendment 80 was enacted, the clean- up doctrine has disappeared because any circuit court now has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear all justiciable matters not assigned elsewhere, and it has the power to grant all remedies to the parties before it.” 2016 Ark. 182 , at 5 n.3, 491 S.W.3d 113 , 118 n.3 (emphasis added).	3	2017–2019
Colclasure v. Kansas City Life Insurance green ark · 1986 2 sentences 2016Douthitt v. Douthitt, 326 Ark. 372 , 930 S.W.2d 371 (1996), The cleanup doctrine provides that, once a court of equity acquires jurisdiction over a case, it may decide all other issues, legal or equitable, Colclasure, 290 Ark. 585 , 720 S.W.2d 916 (1986), Since amendment 80 was enacted, the clean-up doctrine has disappeared because any circuit court now has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear all justiciable matters not assigned elsewhere, and it has the power to grant all remedies to the parties before it, See McDaniel, Charles Dr., Jr., First National Bank of Dewitt v. Cruthis: An Analysis o 2016Douthitt v. Douthitt, 326 Ark. 372 , 930 S.W.2d 371 (1996), The cleanup doctrine provides that, once a court of equity acquires jurisdiction over a case, it may decide all other issues, legal or equitable, Colclasure, 290 Ark. 585 , 720 S.W.2d 916 (1986), Since amendment 80 was enacted, the clean-up doctrine has disappeared because any circuit court now has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear all justiciable matters not assigned elsewhere, and it has the power to grant all remedies to the parties before it, See McDaniel, Charles Dr., Jr., First National Bank of Dewitt v. Cruthis: An Analysis o	3	1989–2016
Tilley v. Malvern National Bank green ark · 2017 2 sentences 2018First, Farm Credit concedes that in light of the supreme court's recent decision abolishing the clean-up doctrine in Tilley v. Malvern National Bank , 2017 Ark. 343 , 532 S.W.3d 570 , the circuit court did not err in submitting the Bollingers' counterclaim to a jury. 2018First, Farm Credit concedes that in light of the supreme court's recent decision abolishing the clean-up doctrine in Tilley v. Malvern National Bank , 2017 Ark. 343 , 532 S.W.3d 570 , the circuit court did not err in submitting the Bollingers' counterclaim to a jury.	2	2018–2019
Riggin v. Dierdorff green ark · 1990 1 sentence 2017Id. (citing Douthitt v. Dowthitt, 326 Ark. 372 , 930 S.W.2d 371 (1996)).	1	2017–2017
National Bank of Arkansas v. River Crossing Partners, LLC green ark · 2011 2 sentences 2017Further, Tilley asserted that after the passage of amendment 80, there is only one circuit court and the court must comply with the following standard: Nat’l Bank of Ark., 2011 Ark. 475, at 10 , 385 S.W.3d at 761 . 2017Further, Tilley asserted that after the passage of amendment 80, there is only one circuit court and the court must comply with the following standard: Nat’l Bank of Ark., 2011 Ark. 475, at 10 , 385 S.W.3d at 761 .	1	2017–2017
National Bank of Arkansas v. River Crossing Partners, LLC neutral arkctapp · 2010 1 sentence 2011See Ludwig v. Bella Casa, LLC, 2010 Ark. 435 , 372 S.W.3d 792 ; First Nat’l Bank v. Cruthis, 360 \|nArk. 528, 203 S.W.3d 88 (2005); Nat’l Bank of Ark. v. River Crossing Partners, LLC, 2010 Ark.	1	2011–2011
First National Bank of DeWitt v. Cruthis green ark · 2005 1 sentence 2011See Ludwig v. Bella Casa, LLC, 2010 Ark. 435 , 372 S.W.3d 792 ; First Nat’l Bank v. Cruthis, 360 \|nArk. 528, 203 S.W.3d 88 (2005); Nat’l Bank of Ark. v. River Crossing Partners, LLC, 2010 Ark.	1	2011–2011
Daley v. Gatewood green ark · 1981 2 sentences 2000See Arkansas State Medical Bd. v. Leipzig, 299 Ark. 71 , 770 S.W.2d 661 (1989); Daley v. Digby, 272 Ark. 267 , 613 S.W.2d 589 (1981); and Pinckney v. Mass Merchandisers, Inc., 16 Ark.App. 151 , 698 S.W.2d 310 (1985). 2000See Arkansas State Medical Bd. v. Leipzig, 299 Ark. 71 , 770 S.W.2d 661 (1989); Daley v. Digby, 272 Ark. 267 , 613 S.W.2d 589 (1981); and Pinckney v. Mass Merchandisers, Inc., 16 Ark.App. 151 , 698 S.W.2d 310 (1985).	1	2000–2000
Pinckney v. Mass Merchandisers, Inc. green arkctapp · 1985 2 sentences 2000See Arkansas State Medical Bd. v. Leipzig, 299 Ark. 71 , 770 S.W.2d 661 (1989); Daley v. Digby, 272 Ark. 267 , 613 S.W.2d 589 (1981); and Pinckney v. Mass Merchandisers, Inc., 16 Ark.App. 151 , 698 S.W.2d 310 (1985). 2000See Arkansas State Medical Bd. v. Leipzig, 299 Ark. 71 , 770 S.W.2d 661 (1989); Daley v. Digby, 272 Ark. 267 , 613 S.W.2d 589 (1981); and Pinckney v. Mass Merchandisers, Inc., 16 Ark.App. 151 , 698 S.W.2d 310 (1985).	1	2000–2000
Pryor v. Hot Spring County Chancery Court green ark · 1990 2 sentences 1996Pryor v. Hot Spring County Chancery Court, 303 Ark. 630 , 799 S.W.2d 524 (1990). 1996Pryor v. Hot Spring County Chancery Court, 303 Ark. 630 , 799 S.W.2d 524 (1990).	1	1996–1996
Smith v. Eastgate Properties, Inc. green · 1993 2 sentences 1994Smith v. Eastgate Properties, Inc., 312 Ark. 355 , 849 S.W.2d 504 (1993). 1994Smith v. Eastgate Properties, Inc., 312 Ark. 355 , 849 S.W.2d 504 (1993).	1	1994–1994
Lee v. Webb green scotus · 1987 1 sentence 1989Co., 290 Ark. 585 , 720 S.W.2d 916 , cert. den. 481 U.S. 1069 (1986), a foreclosure action is equitable in nature, but the chancellor may, under the clean-up doctrine, award a legal money judgment along with the foreclosure.	1	1989–1989
Towell v. Shepherd green ark · 1985 2 sentences 1986Towell v. Shepherd, 286 Ark. 143 , 689 S.W.2d 564 (1985). 1986Towell v. Shepherd, 286 Ark. 143 , 689 S.W.2d 564 (1985).	1	1986–1986
Hawkins v. Bleakly, Auditor of the State of Iowa, Et Al. green · 1916 1 sentence 1986Hawkins v. Bleakly, 243 U.S. 210 (1917).	1	1986–1986
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover green scotus · 1959 2 sentences 1986The appellants next contend that the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Beacon Theaters, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959), prevent the application of the clean-up doctrine. 1986The appellants next contend that the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Beacon Theaters, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959), prevent the application of the clean-up doctrine.	1	1986–1986
Dugan v. Cureton green ca9 · 1837 1 sentence 1986Dugan v. Cureton, 1 Ark. 31 (1837); Price v. State Bank, 14 Ark. 50 (1853); Saunders v. Wood, 15 Ark. 24 (1854).	1	1986–1986
Price v. State Bank neutral ark · 1853 1 sentence 1986Dugan v. Cureton, 1 Ark. 31 (1837); Price v. State Bank, 14 Ark. 50 (1853); Saunders v. Wood, 15 Ark. 24 (1854).	1	1986–1986
Saunders v. Wood neutral ark · 1854 1 sentence 1986Dugan v. Cureton, 1 Ark. 31 (1837); Price v. State Bank, 14 Ark. 50 (1853); Saunders v. Wood, 15 Ark. 24 (1854).	1	1986–1986
Johnson v. Johnson neutral ark · 1966 2 sentences 1985See White v. Cliff Peck Chevrolet, 266 Ark. 942 , 587 S.W.2d 606 (1979); Johnson v. Johnson, 240 Ark. 657 , 401 S.W.2d 213 (1966); Bierbaum v. City of Hamburg, 262 Ark. 532 , 559 S.W.2d 20 (1977); Import Motors v. Luker, 268 Ark. 1045 , 599 S.W.2d 398 (1980); and 27 Am Jur 2d Equity § 108. 1985See White v. Cliff Peck Chevrolet, 266 Ark. 942 , 587 S.W.2d 606 (1979); Johnson v. Johnson, 240 Ark. 657 , 401 S.W.2d 213 (1966); Bierbaum v. City of Hamburg, 262 Ark. 532 , 559 S.W.2d 20 (1977); Import Motors v. Luker, 268 Ark. 1045 , 599 S.W.2d 398 (1980); and 27 Am Jur 2d Equity § 108.	1	1985–1985
Import Motors, Inc. v. Luker green arkctapp · 1980 2 sentences 1985See White v. Cliff Peck Chevrolet, 266 Ark. 942 , 587 S.W.2d 606 (1979); Johnson v. Johnson, 240 Ark. 657 , 401 S.W.2d 213 (1966); Bierbaum v. City of Hamburg, 262 Ark. 532 , 559 S.W.2d 20 (1977); Import Motors v. Luker, 268 Ark. 1045 , 599 S.W.2d 398 (1980); and 27 Am Jur 2d Equity § 108. 1985See White v. Cliff Peck Chevrolet, 266 Ark. 942 , 587 S.W.2d 606 (1979); Johnson v. Johnson, 240 Ark. 657 , 401 S.W.2d 213 (1966); Bierbaum v. City of Hamburg, 262 Ark. 532 , 559 S.W.2d 20 (1977); Import Motors v. Luker, 268 Ark. 1045 , 599 S.W.2d 398 (1980); and 27 Am Jur 2d Equity § 108.	1	1985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 11 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

AR 23 (1979–2019) DE 15 (2015–2026)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check