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.
14 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1877–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of the Application of Gary James Collins for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Gary James Collins v. Calvin Auger, Warden, Iowa Men's Reformatorygreen1 sentence2013However, the issue has been addressed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Collins v. Auger, 577 F.2d 1107, 1109-10 (8th Cir.1978), in the context of a petition for writ of habeas corpus: The defendant is entitled to raise his mental condition at the time of the offense as a defense. | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Anderson v. State, 2015 Ark. 18, at 7 , 454 S.W.3d 212, 218 (per curiam) (Notwithstanding the fact that sufficiency challenges are not cognizable in postconviction proceedings, this court had addressed the sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal and upheld the judgment.). 2010See, e.g., Anderson v. State, 2015 Ark. 18, at 7 , 454 S.W.3d 212, 218 (per curiam) (Notwithstanding the fact that sufficiency challenges are not cognizable in postconviction proceedings, this court had addressed the sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal and upheld the judgment.). | 1 | 1 |
Wallis v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2006See Wallis v. Ford Motor Company, 362 Ark. 317 , 208 S.W.3d 153 (2005) (pointing out that § 4-88-113(f) gives a private cause of action to any person who suffers actual damage or injury, but where the only alleged injury is the diminution in value of the product, a private cause of action is not cognizable under the statute). 2006See Wallis v. Ford Motor Company, 362 Ark. 317 , 208 S.W.3d 153 (2005) (pointing out that § 4-88-113(f) gives a private cause of action to any person who suffers actual damage or injury, but where the only alleged injury is the diminution in value of the product, a private cause of action is not cognizable under the statute). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Nittigreen1 sentence1998Id.; see also United States v. Nitti, 733 F. Supp. 496 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Garrett v. Andrewsgreen2 sentences1996See Weidrick, 310 Ark. at 144 , citing Garrett v. Andrews, 294 Ark. 160 , 741 S.W.2d 257 (1987). 5 Section 5-53-134 states in relevant part: (a) A person commits the offense of violation of an order of protection if: * * * (2) He has received actual notice or notice pursuant to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure of a temporary order of protection or an order of protection pursuant to the Domestic Abuse Act of 1991, § 9-15-101 et seq [.] A.C.A. § 5-53-134 (a)(2) (Repl. 1993) (emphasis added). 1996See Weidrick, 310 Ark. at 144 , citing Garrett v. Andrews, 294 Ark. 160 , 741 S.W.2d 257 (1987). 5 Section 5-53-134 states in relevant part: (a) A person commits the offense of violation of an order of protection if: * * * (2) He has received actual notice or notice pursuant to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure of a temporary order of protection or an order of protection pursuant to the Domestic Abuse Act of 1991, § 9-15-101 et seq [.] A.C.A. § 5-53-134 (a)(2) (Repl. 1993) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Weidrick v. Arnoldgreen1 sentence1996See Weidrick, 310 Ark. at 144 , citing Garrett v. Andrews, 294 Ark. 160 , 741 S.W.2d 257 (1987). 5 Section 5-53-134 states in relevant part: (a) A person commits the offense of violation of an order of protection if: * * * (2) He has received actual notice or notice pursuant to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure of a temporary order of protection or an order of protection pursuant to the Domestic Abuse Act of 1991, § 9-15-101 et seq [.] A.C.A. § 5-53-134 (a)(2) (Repl. 1993) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Standridge v. State
neutral
2 sentences2014By contrast, section 5-53-134 provides in relevant part: (a)(1) A person commits the offense of violation of an order of protection if: (A) A circuit court or other court with competent jurisdiction has issued a temporary order of protection or an order of protection against the person pursuant to the The Domestic Abuse Act of 1991, § 9-15-101 et seq.; (B) The person has received actual notice or notice pursuant to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure of a temporary order of protection or an order of protection pursuant to the The Domestic Abuse Act of 1991, § 9-15-101 et seq.; and (C) The pe 2014By contrast, section 5-53-134 provides in relevant part: (a)(1) A person commits the offense of violation of an order of protection if: (A) A circuit court or other court with competent jurisdiction has issued a temporary order of protection or an order of protection against the person pursuant to the The Domestic Abuse Act of 1991, § 9-15-101 et seq.; (B) The person has received actual notice or notice pursuant to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure of a temporary order of protection or an order of protection pursuant to the The Domestic Abuse Act of 1991, § 9-15-101 et seq.; and (C) The pe | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Roach v. Concord Boat Corp.
green
1 sentence2021This is the extent of the appellant’s conclusory argument, and it ignores that in Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-88-113(f), a private remedy is established for “[a]ny person who suffers actual damage or injury as a result of an offense or violation as defined in this chapter.” 5 This person “has a cause of action to recover actual damages, if appropriate, and reasonable attorney’s fees.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sullivan v. State
neutral
1 sentence2014Because there is no term or 3 Cite as 2014 Ark. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
FMC CORPORATION, INC. v. Helton
green
2 sentences2009However, pursuant to subsection (f) of section 4-88-113, “[a]ny person who suffers actual damage or injury as a result of an offense or violation as defined in this chapter has a cause of action to recover actual damages, if appropriate.” See FMC Corp., Inc. v. Helton, 360 Ark. 465 , 202 S.W.3d 490 (2005). 2009However, pursuant to subsection (f) of section 4-88-113, “[a]ny person who suffers actual damage or injury as a result of an offense or violation as defined in this chapter has a cause of action to recover actual damages, if appropriate.” See FMC Corp., Inc. v. Helton, 360 Ark. 465 , 202 S.W.3d 490 (2005). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hatley v. State
green
1 sentence2004App. 209 , 5 S.W.3d 86 (1999), the Arkansas Court of Appeals pointed out in a footnote that the act of refusal to submit constitutes a "violation," which is defined in A.C.A. § 5-1-108 , as follows: (a) An offense is a violation if it is so designated by this code or by a statute not a part of this code. (b) Regardless of any designation appearing in the statute defining an offense, an offense is a violation for purposes of this code if the statute defining the offense provides that no sentence other than a fine, or fine or forfeiture, or civil penalty is authorized upon conviction. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Bates v. Bates
green
2 sentences1991Sincerely, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General WB:cyh 1 Act 636 of 1989 was ruled unconstitutional by the Arkansas Supreme Court in the case of Bates v. Bates, 303 Ark. 89 , 793 S.W.2d 788 (1990). 2 The offense of violation of an order of protection is now set forth in Act 267 of 1991, as amended by Act 1236 of 1991 (codified at A.C.A § 5-53-134 (Cum. 1991Sincerely, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General WB:cyh 1 Act 636 of 1989 was ruled unconstitutional by the Arkansas Supreme Court in the case of Bates v. Bates, 303 Ark. 89 , 793 S.W.2d 788 (1990). 2 The offense of violation of an order of protection is now set forth in Act 267 of 1991, as amended by Act 1236 of 1991 (codified at A.C.A § 5-53-134 (Cum. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Green v. United States
green
1 sentence1988The Court said: In brief, we believe this case can be treated no differently, for purposes of former jeopardy, than if the jury had returned a verdict which expressly read: “We find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree but guilty of murder in the second degree.” 355 U.S. at 191 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
United States v. Bailey
green
1 sentence1877United States v. Bailey, 9 Peters, 238 . | 1 | 1877–1877 |
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.