14 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1941–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. Cookgreen2 sentences2001See also Murphy v. Cook, 202 Ark. 1069 , 155 S.W.2d 330 (1941) (holding that where intent was obvious, court would substitute 50,000 for 40,000, as the latter figure was merely a typographical error). 2001See also Murphy v. Cook, 202 Ark. 1069 , 155 S.W.2d 330 (1941) (holding that where intent was obvious, court would substitute 50,000 for 40,000, as the latter figure was merely a typographical error). | 6 | 6 |
Duty v. City of Rogersgreen2 sentences2010See A.C.A. § 1-2-303 (d)(1)(C) and (P) (Repl. 2008) (Arkansas Code Revision Commission empowered to "[c]orrect manifest typographical . . . errors" and "[c]orrect punctuation"); see also, e.g., Duty v. City of Rogers , 255 Ark. 309 , 500 S.W.2d 347 (1973) (courts disregard punctuation to give effect to legislative intent that is otherwise apparent). 2 Superfluous comma omitted. 2010See A.C.A. § 1-2-303 (d)(1)(C) and (P) (Repl. 2008) (Arkansas Code Revision Commission empowered to "[c]orrect manifest typographical . . . errors" and "[c]orrect punctuation"); see also, e.g., Duty v. City of Rogers , 255 Ark. 309 , 500 S.W.2d 347 (1973) (courts disregard punctuation to give effect to legislative intent that is otherwise apparent). 2 Superfluous comma omitted. | 1 | 1 |
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Erwingreen1 sentence1950See Thibault v. McHaney, 119 Ark. 188 , 177 S. W. 877 . | 1 | 1 |
Thibault v. McHaneygreen1 sentence1950See Thibault v. McHaney, 119 Ark. 188 , 177 S. W. 877 . | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Mathews, County Judgegreen1 sentence1942Mogel, and Frank Coffman, representing themselves to be citizens, residents, and taxpayers of Boone county, were holders of retail liquor dealers’ licenses; also, they were engaged in the sale of native wines, “manufactured, distributed, and sold by residents of Arkansas.” 4 Ante, p. 100, 155 S. W. 2d 716 . 5 Mr. Milum is county court clerk. 6 Italics supplied. [Although appellants’ brief (p. 26) quotes Milum as saying the. list contained 3,470 names, this is obviously a typographical error. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
KENNETH R. ISOM v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
green
2 sentences2021However, review of the opinion clearly indicates that omission of the word “no” is a typographical error, as the court of appeals went on to affirm Jones’s conviction and sentence.3 See Isom v. State, 2018 Ark. 368 , 563 S.W.3d 533 (typographical error did not otherwise affect the circuit court’s reasoning or decision); Springs v. State, 368 Ark. 256 , 3 The typographical error is also quite clear when read in context with the next sentence that states, “Neither do we find that the trial court erred by allowing testimony by a doctor . . . .” Jones, 2010 Ark. 2021However, review of the opinion clearly indicates that omission of the word “no” is a typographical error, as the court of appeals went on to affirm Jones’s conviction and sentence.3 See Isom v. State, 2018 Ark. 368 , 563 S.W.3d 533 (typographical error did not otherwise affect the circuit court’s reasoning or decision); Springs v. State, 368 Ark. 256 , 3 The typographical error is also quite clear when read in context with the next sentence that states, “Neither do we find that the trial court erred by allowing testimony by a doctor . . . .” Jones, 2010 Ark. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Springs v. State
green
2 sentences2021However, review of the opinion clearly indicates that omission of the word “no” is a typographical error, as the court of appeals went on to affirm Jones’s conviction and sentence.3 See Isom v. State, 2018 Ark. 368 , 563 S.W.3d 533 (typographical error did not otherwise affect the circuit court’s reasoning or decision); Springs v. State, 368 Ark. 256 , 3 The typographical error is also quite clear when read in context with the next sentence that states, “Neither do we find that the trial court erred by allowing testimony by a doctor . . . .” Jones, 2010 Ark. 2021However, review of the opinion clearly indicates that omission of the word “no” is a typographical error, as the court of appeals went on to affirm Jones’s conviction and sentence.3 See Isom v. State, 2018 Ark. 368 , 563 S.W.3d 533 (typographical error did not otherwise affect the circuit court’s reasoning or decision); Springs v. State, 368 Ark. 256 , 3 The typographical error is also quite clear when read in context with the next sentence that states, “Neither do we find that the trial court erred by allowing testimony by a doctor . . . .” Jones, 2010 Ark. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Michael E. Rea v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
green
1 sentence2021Rea, 2019 Ark. 339 , 588 S.W.3d 715 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bush v. State
green
2 sentences2000Moreover, as the Supreme Court observed in Bush v. State, 338 Ark. 772 , 2 S.W.3d 761 (1999): "It is axiomatic that the meaning of certain words or phrases cannot be determined in isolation, but must be drawn from the context in which they are used." In the present case, these principles lead me to focus on the Act's statement of an intention to benefit "local governmental units," A.C.A. § 25-20-102 — a term I believe includes CATA — by authorizing cooperative projects among them. 2000Moreover, as the Supreme Court observed in Bush v. State, 338 Ark. 772 , 2 S.W.3d 761 (1999): "It is axiomatic that the meaning of certain words or phrases cannot be determined in isolation, but must be drawn from the context in which they are used." In the present case, these principles lead me to focus on the Act's statement of an intention to benefit "local governmental units," A.C.A. § 25-20-102 — a term I believe includes CATA — by authorizing cooperative projects among them. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Robinson v. Sutterfield
green
2 sentences1991This conclusion is indicated by the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision in Robinson v. Sutterfield, 302 Ark. 7 , 786 S.W.2d 572 (1990). 1991This conclusion is indicated by the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision in Robinson v. Sutterfield, 302 Ark. 7 , 786 S.W.2d 572 (1990). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Morrilton v. Moose
neutral
2 sentences1967We considered a similar situation in Morrilton v. Moose, 185 Ark. 1051 , 49 S. W. 2d 1044 (1932), where the appellees guaranteed the payment of a bank account owned by the city of Morrilton. 1967We considered a similar situation in Morrilton v. Moose, 185 Ark. 1051 , 49 S. W. 2d 1044 (1932), where the appellees guaranteed the payment of a bank account owned by the city of Morrilton. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Shrader v. Gardner
neutral
2 sentences1943Francis.] 2 Pope’s Digest, § 8905. 3 The Act applies to “. . . any person, corporation, firm, association, partnership, materialman, artisan, laborer, or mechanic.” 4 Act 51(3, approved March 21, 1923, (Pope’s Digest, § 8916) authorizes a lien in favor of laborers engaged in drilling or operating an oil or gas well, etc., and is not involved in this appeal. [The citation in Pope’s Digest is 9816, which is a typographical error.] 5 Certain express liens are authorized, but they are not an issue here. 6 Vernon’s Annotated [Civil] Statutes, 1925 Revision, v. 16, article 5473. 7 “Any person . . . 1943Va. 780 , 74 S. E. 990 , 40 L. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Robinson v. the Incorporated Town of Devalls Bluff
neutral
2 sentences1941In Robinson v. DeValls Bluff, 197 Ark. 391 , 122 S. W. 2d 552 , “inseparable” was held to be a typographical error for “separable.” It was recently held that the word “corporation” as used in § 2-b of act 129 of 1941 was held to be a clerical misprision for the word “proportion.” Harclin, Commissioner v. Ft. 1941In Robinson v. DeValls Bluff, 197 Ark. 391 , 122 S. W. 2d 552 , “inseparable” was held to be a typographical error for “separable.” It was recently held that the word “corporation” as used in § 2-b of act 129 of 1941 was held to be a clerical misprision for the word “proportion.” Harclin, Commissioner v. Ft. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
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.