14 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Travis v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Travis v. State, 328 Ark. 442 , 451–52, 944 S.W.2d 96, 100 (1997). 2024See, e.g., Travis v. State, 328 Ark. 442 , 451–52, 944 S.W.2d 96, 100 (1997). | 2 | 2 |
Trusclair v. McGowan Working Partnersgreen2 sentences2023Trusclair, 2009 Ark. 203 , at 3–4, 306 S.W.3d at 430 . 1 The substantial-compliance standard adopted by the supreme court in January 2019 is inapplicable here because Ark. 2023Trusclair, 2009 Ark. 203 , at 3–4, 306 S.W.3d at 430 . 1 The substantial-compliance standard adopted by the supreme court in January 2019 is inapplicable here because Ark. | 1 | 3 |
Trussell v. Fishgreen2 sentences2025Trussell v. Fish, 202 Ark. 956, 961 , 154 S.W.2d 587, 590 (1941). 2025Trussell v. Fish, 202 Ark. 956, 961 , 154 S.W.2d 587, 590 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. New Britain General Hospitalgreen1 sentence2020Hosp., 643 A.2d 233, 242 (Conn. 1994) (the substantial-compliance test ensures procedural fairness to the physician while preserving decisions concerning staff privileges for the expert judgment of hospital officials). | 1 | 1 |
Emis v. Emisgreen2 sentences2020App. P.–Civ. 3(e); see Emis v. Emis, 2017 Ark. 52, at 4 , 508 S.W.3d 886, 888 (applying a substantial-compliance standard rather than a strict- compliance standard and allowing appeal to proceed when document was timely filed and “because there was no prejudice to the appellee[.]”). 2020App. P.–Civ. 3(e); see Emis v. Emis, 2017 Ark. 52, at 4 , 508 S.W.3d 886, 888 (applying a substantial-compliance standard rather than a strict- compliance standard and allowing appeal to proceed when document was timely filed and “because there was no prejudice to the appellee[.]”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stark Ligon, as Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct v. Teresa Lynette Bloodman
green
2 sentences2024Our supreme court discussed the implications of Rule 4(k), adopted on January 1, 2019, in Ligon v. Bloodman, 2021 Ark. 124 , noting that this rule “relaxed the traditional strict- compliance standard by reestablishing the substantial-compliance standard,” 2021 Ark. 124, at 7 , and that it was in accord with older Arkansas authority, “both as to the summons and service of process, in nondefault cases.” 2021 Ark. 124, at 8 . 2024Our supreme court discussed the implications of Rule 4(k), adopted on January 1, 2019, in Ligon v. Bloodman, 2021 Ark. 124 , noting that this rule “relaxed the traditional strict- compliance standard by reestablishing the substantial-compliance standard,” 2021 Ark. 124, at 7 , and that it was in accord with older Arkansas authority, “both as to the summons and service of process, in nondefault cases.” 2021 Ark. 124, at 8 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Mitchell \mitch\" Wine v. Doralee Chandler and Leslie Rutledge
green
2 sentences2021Here, relying on Wine v. Chandler, Bloodman argues that the substantial-compliance standard is not triggered in this case because she did not file a timely answer to the petition; rather, she filed a motion to dismiss. 2020 Ark. 2021App. 412 , at 10–11, 607 S.W.3d 522 , 528– 29 (explaining that although the appellees did receive notice of the complaint, they did not file an answer; rather, they filed a timely motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Mills v. Moore
green
1 sentence2021The reporter’s notes indicate that the new provision in subdivision (k) “reestablishes a substantial-compliance standard for process and service of process under Rule 4 when the defendant has actual notice of the complaint and has filed a timely answer.” Id. para. 41. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re Comm. on Civ. Practice
neutral
1 sentence2016Subdivision (k) is in accord with older Arkansas authority holding the plaintiff to a substantial-compliance standard, both as to the summons and service of process, in nondefault 18 Cite as 2016 Ark. 29 cases. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Rogers v. Tudor Insurance
green
2 sentences2014Relying on Rogers v. Tudor Insurance Co., 325 Ark. 226 , 925 S.W.2d 395 (1996), and Circle D Contractors, Inc. v. Bartlett, 2013 Ark. 131 , Taylor contends that Rule 9 mirrors Rule 3 of the Arkansas Appellate Rules. 2014Relying on Rogers v. Tudor Insurance Co., 325 Ark. 226 , 925 S.W.2d 395 (1996), and Circle D Contractors, Inc. v. Bartlett, 2013 Ark. 131 , Taylor contends that Rule 9 mirrors Rule 3 of the Arkansas Appellate Rules. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Spainhour v. Dover Public School District
neutral
2 sentences1998Spainhour, 331 Ark. 53 , 958 S.W.2d 528 . 1998Spainhour, 331 Ark. 53 , 958 S.W.2d 528 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.