15 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hernandez v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences2018Further, our supreme court has determined that "the specific enumeration of the factors within the statute does not preclude a circuit court from considering other relevant factors, where exclusion of other factors would lead to absurd results or deny the intent of the legislature to allow for the equitable division of property." Hernandez v. Hernandez , 371 Ark. 323 , 328, 265 S.W.3d 746 , 750 (2007). 2018Further, our supreme court has determined that "the specific enumeration of the factors within the statute does not preclude a circuit court from considering other relevant factors, where exclusion of other factors would lead to absurd results or deny the intent of the legislature to allow for the equitable division of property." Hernandez v. Hernandez , 371 Ark. 323 , 328, 265 S.W.3d 746 , 750 (2007). | 1 | 6 |
Brown v. Browngreen2 sentences2021Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333 , 284 S.W.3d 17 (2008). 2021Brown v. Brown, 373 Ark. 333 , 284 S.W.3d 17 (2008). | 1 | 3 |
Stover v. Stovergreen2 sentences2010Stover v. Stover, 287 Ark. 116 , 696 S.W.2d 750 (1985). 2010Stover v. Stover, 287 Ark. 116 , 696 S.W.2d 750 (1985). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Keathley v. Keathley
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 158-59 , 61 S.W.3d at 225 . 2011Id. at 158-59 , 61 S.W.3d at 225 . | 2 | 2007–2011 |
Page v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Day v. Day
green
2 sentences2004Similarly, the trial judge’s misstatement that the accounts would not vest for two years, although erroneous, see Day v. Day, 281 Ark. 261 , 663 S.W.2d 719 (1984) (holding that husband’s interest in retirement plan was “vested” because it could not be unilaterally terminated by the employer without also terminating the employment relationship), is not repeated in the written order. 2004Similarly, the trial judge’s misstatement that the accounts would not vest for two years, although erroneous, see Day v. Day, 281 Ark. 261 , 663 S.W.2d 719 (1984) (holding that husband’s interest in retirement plan was “vested” because it could not be unilaterally terminated by the employer without also terminating the employment relationship), is not repeated in the written order. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.