23 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
James Winfield Wyatt v. Tyray Carr; Pulaski County Board of Election Commissioners; And John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Stategreen2 sentences2026See id. (citing Helena-W. 2026Wyatt v. Carr, 2020 Ark. 21 , 592 S.W.3d 656 . | 1 | 3 |
Crawford v. Cashiongreen2 sentences2017Crawford v. Cashion, 2010 Ark. 124, at 1 , 361 S.W.3d 268, 270 (per curiam). 5 However, appellate courts should Ifinot apply the clearly-erroneous standard if review of the underlying basis for the action is governed by another standard. 2017Crawford v. Cashion, 2010 Ark. 124, at 1 , 361 S.W.3d 268, 270 (per curiam). 5 However, appellate courts should Ifinot apply the clearly-erroneous standard if review of the underlying basis for the action is governed by another standard. | 1 | 1 |
Steele v. Lyongreen1 sentence2015See Steele, supra. Although our opinion states that there is significant and persuasive evidence to show that Danner did in fact authorize some charges, significant and persuasive is not the standard by which this court addresses sufficiency-of-evidence questions. | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Kellygreen1 sentence2013See id. | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Hallgreen1 sentence2013See id. | 1 | 1 |
Potter v. Bryan Funeral Homegreen2 sentences2010See also Potter, 307 Ark. at 146 , 817 S.W.2d at 884-85 (affirming the trial court based on other evidence in the case, despite the court’s error in gathering evidence outside the courtroom). 2010See also Potter, 307 Ark. at 146 , 817 S.W.2d at 884-85 (affirming the trial court based on other evidence in the case, despite the court’s error in gathering evidence outside the courtroom). | 1 | 1 |
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF GARLAND CTY. v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2010See also Republican Party of Garland Cnty. v. Johnson, 358 Ark. 443 , 193 S.W.3d 248 (2004); Pianalto v. Pianalto, 2010 Ark. 2010See also Republican Party of Garland Cnty. v. Johnson, 358 Ark. 443 , 193 S.W.3d 248 (2004); Pianalto v. Pianalto, 2010 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.green1 sentence2007See Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Evans v. Tillerygreen2 sentences2006See id. 2006See id. | 1 | 1 |
Thurston v. Pinkstaffgreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., Thurston v. Pinkstaff, 292 Ark. 385 , 730 S.W.2d 239 (1987). 2005See, e.g., Thurston v. Pinkstaff, 292 Ark. 385 , 730 S.W.2d 239 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Burke v. Elmoregreen2 sentences2004See Burke v. Elmore, 341 Ark. 129 , 14 S.W.3d 872 (2000). 2004See Burke v. Elmore, 341 Ark. 129 , 14 S.W.3d 872 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Eaton v. Dixongreen2 sentences2003Again, in Eaton v. Dixon, 69 Ark.App. 9 , 9 S.W.3d 535 (2000), we acknowledged that [a] judicial award of child custody should not be modified unless it is shown that there are changed conditions that demonstrate that a modification of the decree is in the best interest of the child, or when there is a showing of facts affecting the best interest of the child that were either not presented to the chancellor or were not known by the chancellor at the time the original custody order was entered. 69 Ark.App. at 11-12 , 9 S.W.3d at 537 (citations omitted) (emphasis provided). 2003Again, in Eaton v. Dixon, 69 Ark.App. 9 , 9 S.W.3d 535 (2000), we acknowledged that [a] judicial award of child custody should not be modified unless it is shown that there are changed conditions that demonstrate that a modification of the decree is in the best interest of the child, or when there is a showing of facts affecting the best interest of the child that were either not presented to the chancellor or were not known by the chancellor at the time the original custody order was entered. 69 Ark.App. at 11-12 , 9 S.W.3d at 537 (citations omitted) (emphasis provided). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Poff v. Peedin
green
2 sentences2023Poff v. Peedin, 2010 Ark. 136 , 366 S.W.3d 347 . 2023Poff v. Peedin, 2010 Ark. 136 , 366 S.W.3d 347 . | 3 | 2014–2023 |
Davis v. Williamson
green
2 sentences2017Davis v. Williamson, 359 Ark. 33 , 194 S.W.3d 197 (2004). 2017Davis v. Williamson, 359 Ark. 33 , 194 S.W.3d 197 (2004). | 2 | 2006–2017 |
Stow v. State
green
1 sentence2026Stow v. State, 2016 Ark. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Haile v. Johnston
green
2 sentences2026Haile v. Johnston, 2016 Ark. 52 , 482 S.W.3d 323 . 2026Haile v. Johnston, 2016 Ark. 52 , 482 S.W.3d 323 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Skokos v. Skokos
green
2 sentences2018Id. ; Skokos v. Skokos , 344 Ark. 420 , 40 S.W.3d 768 (2001). 2018Id. ; Skokos v. Skokos , 344 Ark. 420 , 40 S.W.3d 768 (2001). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Anderson v. Stewart
green
1 sentence2018Id. ; Skokos v. Skokos , 344 Ark. 420 , 40 S.W.3d 768 (2001). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Fairpark, LLC v. Healthcare Essentials, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Fairpark, LLC v. Healthcare Essentials, 2011 Ark. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Pianalto v. Pianalto
neutral
1 sentence2010See also Republican Party of Garland Cnty. v. Johnson, 358 Ark. 443 , 193 S.W.3d 248 (2004); Pianalto v. Pianalto, 2010 Ark. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Clark v. State
green
1 sentence2009Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Harris v. City of Fort Smith
green
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Huffman v. Fisher
green
2 sentences2005In Huffman v. Fisher, 337 Ark. 58 , 987 S.W.2d 269 (1999) ( Huffman I ), our supreme court held that a circuit court's findings regarding a name-change petition are reviewed under the clearly-erroneous standard. 2005In Huffman v. Fisher, 337 Ark. 58 , 987 S.W.2d 269 (1999) ( Huffman I ), our supreme court held that a circuit court's findings regarding a name-change petition are reviewed under the clearly-erroneous standard. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.
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.