12 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1948–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Paxtongreen2 sentences2020Harps argued that the “law of negligence requires as essential elements that the plaintiff show that a duty was owed and that the duty was breached.” Young v. Paxton, 316 Ark. 655 , 660, 873 S.W.2d 546, 549 (1994). 2020Harps argued that the “law of negligence requires as essential elements that the plaintiff show that a duty was owed and that the duty was breached.” Young v. Paxton, 316 Ark. 655 , 660, 873 S.W.2d 546, 549 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Edward Charles Pickens v. A.L. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2011See Pickens v. Lockhart, 714 F.2d 1455 (8th Cir.1983). 2011See Pickens v. Lockhart, 714 F.2d 1455 (8th Cir.1983). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Lavern Hankey, AKA Poo, Opiniongreen2 sentences2004See United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.2000). 2004See United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Jacobs Ex Rel. Jacobsgreen2 sentences1992As we said in Phillips v. Jacobs, 305 Ark. 365, 368 , 807 S.W.2d 923, 925 (1991):“. . .Rule60under our Arkansas Rules should not be used to breathe life into an otherwise defunct Rule 59 motion.” Because Jackson’s motion to vacate was in the nature of a motion for a new trial under Rule 59, it was required to be filed within ten days of judgment. 1992As we said in Phillips v. Jacobs, 305 Ark. 365, 368 , 807 S.W.2d 923, 925 (1991):“. . .Rule60under our Arkansas Rules should not be used to breathe life into an otherwise defunct Rule 59 motion.” Because Jackson’s motion to vacate was in the nature of a motion for a new trial under Rule 59, it was required to be filed within ten days of judgment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
ANARIAN CHAD JACKSON v. WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Jackson v. Kelley
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Jackson v. Norris
green
2 sentences2019Segerstrom appeals and presents five issues: (1) the circuit court erred when it retroactively applied the penalty and parole provisions of the FSMA to resentence Segerstrom to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after thirty years; (2) the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that juvenile capital murderers who were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole are entitled to be resentenced, and denying Segerstrom the relief granted to other Miller - Jackson defendants violates the federal and state constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and fundamental fairness; (3) 2019Segerstrom appeals and presents five issues: (1) the circuit court erred when it retroactively applied the penalty and parole provisions of the FSMA to resentence Segerstrom to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after thirty years; (2) the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that juvenile capital murderers who were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole are entitled to be resentenced, and denying Segerstrom the relief granted to other Miller - Jackson defendants violates the federal and state constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and fundamental fairness; (3) | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2019Segerstrom appeals and presents five issues: (1) the circuit court erred when it retroactively applied the penalty and parole provisions of the FSMA to resentence Segerstrom to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after thirty years; (2) the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that juvenile capital murderers who were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole are entitled to be resentenced, and denying Segerstrom the relief granted to other Miller - Jackson defendants violates the federal and state constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and fundamental fairness; (3) 2019Segerstrom appeals and presents five issues: (1) the circuit court erred when it retroactively applied the penalty and parole provisions of the FSMA to resentence Segerstrom to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after thirty years; (2) the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that juvenile capital murderers who were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole are entitled to be resentenced, and denying Segerstrom the relief granted to other Miller - Jackson defendants violates the federal and state constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and fundamental fairness; (3) | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Montgomery v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2019Segerstrom appeals and presents five issues: (1) the circuit court erred when it retroactively applied the penalty and parole provisions of the FSMA to resentence Segerstrom to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after thirty years; (2) the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that juvenile capital murderers who were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole are entitled to be resentenced, and denying Segerstrom the relief granted to other Miller - Jackson defendants violates the federal and state constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and fundamental fairness; (3) 2019Segerstrom appeals and presents five issues: (1) the circuit court erred when it retroactively applied the penalty and parole provisions of the FSMA to resentence Segerstrom to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after thirty years; (2) the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that juvenile capital murderers who were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole are entitled to be resentenced, and denying Segerstrom the relief granted to other Miller - Jackson defendants violates the federal and state constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and fundamental fairness; (3) | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kelley v. Gordon
green
2 sentences2019Segerstrom appeals and presents five issues: (1) the circuit court erred when it retroactively applied the penalty and parole provisions of the FSMA to resentence Segerstrom to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after thirty years; (2) the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that juvenile capital murderers who were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole are entitled to be resentenced, and denying Segerstrom the relief granted to other Miller - Jackson defendants violates the federal and state constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and fundamental fairness; (3) 2019Segerstrom appeals and presents five issues: (1) the circuit court erred when it retroactively applied the penalty and parole provisions of the FSMA to resentence Segerstrom to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after thirty years; (2) the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that juvenile capital murderers who were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole are entitled to be resentenced, and denying Segerstrom the relief granted to other Miller - Jackson defendants violates the federal and state constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and fundamental fairness; (3) | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Howard v. State
green
2 sentences2018Howard , 2012 Ark. 177 , 403 S.W.3d 38 . 2018Howard , 2012 Ark. 177 , 403 S.W.3d 38 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Larimore v. State
green
2 sentences2016Jackson, 2009 Ark. 572 , at 6 (citing Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271 , 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997)). 2016Jackson, 2009 Ark. 572 , at 6 (citing Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271 , 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ivy v. Keith
green
1 sentence2016Id. 3 Jackson’s brief contains numerous deficiencies, including deficiencies in the abstract, addendum, and argument, in violation of several provisions of Rule 4-2 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jackson v. Stratton
neutral
1 sentence2016Jackson is bound by the brief “as is,” including its deficiencies. 4 Cite as 2016 Ark. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jt Jackson v. Arkansas Power & Light Company
green
2 sentences1993The Arkansas Supreme Court dealt with this precise issue in Jackson v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 309 Ark. 572 , 832 S.W.2d 224 (1992), and the court concluded: Because Jackson’s motion to vacate was in the nature of a motion for a new trial under Rule 59, it was required to be filed within ten days of judgment. 1993The Arkansas Supreme Court dealt with this precise issue in Jackson v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 309 Ark. 572 , 832 S.W.2d 224 (1992), and the court concluded: Because Jackson’s motion to vacate was in the nature of a motion for a new trial under Rule 59, it was required to be filed within ten days of judgment. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Roberson v. State
neutral
2 sentences1948The participants in that transaction had consumed “approximately” five pints of whiskey. (1) — Evidence of Intent. — Where the State alleges an assault, and that the defendant’s intent was to kill, it is not necessary to prove that the crime was committed “after or with-deliberation.” Roberson v. State, 94 Ark. 69 , 126 S. W. 88 . 1948The participants in that transaction had consumed “approximately” five pints of whiskey. (1) — Evidence of Intent. — Where the State alleges an assault, and that the defendant’s intent was to kill, it is not necessary to prove that the crime was committed “after or with-deliberation.” Roberson v. State, 94 Ark. 69 , 126 S. W. 88 . | 1 | 1948–1948 |
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.