locality rule in Arkansas

12 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 4 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Gambill v. Stroudgreen ark · 1976 · cited in 6 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1978–2026 2 sentences 2026See generally Gambill v. Stroud, 258 Ark. 766 , 770-A, 531 S.W.2d 945, 949 (1976) (“If the medical profession recognizes that there are standard treatments, which should be utilized nation-wide this fact should be readily susceptible of proof under the similar locality rule[.]”). 2026See generally Gambill v. Stroud, 258 Ark. 766 , 770-A, 531 S.W.2d 945, 949 (1976) (“If the medical profession recognizes that there are standard treatments, which should be utilized nation-wide this fact should be readily susceptible of proof under the similar locality rule[.]”).	2	6

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
First Commercial Trust Co. v. Rank green ark · 1996 2 sentences 2026Citing First Commercial Trust Co, 323 Ark. at 401 , 915 S.W.2d at 267 , the estate explains that because Dr. Isaacs testified that the standard of care for the management of diabetes is universal throughout the U.S., he satisfies the locality requirement. 2026Citing First Commercial Trust Co, 323 Ark. at 401 , 915 S.W.2d at 267 , the estate explains that because Dr. Isaacs testified that the standard of care for the management of diabetes is universal throughout the U.S., he satisfies the locality requirement.	2	2016–2026
Young v. Gastro-Intestinal Center, Inc. green ark · 2005 2 sentences 2016App. 155, at 8 , 432 S.W.3d 682, 686-87 , we held that in order to meet the locality requirement, “there must be an attestation by an expert regarding this locality or a similar one.” (Citing Young v. Gastro-Intestinal Ctr., Inc., 361 Ark. 209 , 205 S.W.3d 741 (2005)). 2016App. 155, at 8 , 432 S.W.3d 682, 686-87 , we held that in order to meet the locality requirement, “there must be an attestation by an expert regarding this locality or a similar one.” (Citing Young v. Gastro-Intestinal Ctr., Inc., 361 Ark. 209 , 205 S.W.3d 741 (2005)).	2	2014–2016
Aj Harvey v. Jeffrey Johnson, M.D. neutral arkctapp · 2025 1 sentence 2026Harvey v. Johnson, 2025 Ark.	1	2026–2026
Broussard v. St. Edward Mercy Health System, Inc. green ark · 2012 2 sentences 2024Edward Mercy Health System, Inc., 2012 Ark. 14 , 386 S.W.3d 385 . 8 Our supreme court has endorsed the locality rule as to the standard of care in Arkansas. 2024Edward Mercy Health System, Inc., 2012 Ark. 14 , 386 S.W.3d 385 . 8 Our supreme court has endorsed the locality rule as to the standard of care in Arkansas.	1	2024–2024
Grice v. Atkinson green ark · 1992 2 sentences 2024Newton cites Grice v. Atkinson, 308 Ark. 637 , 826 S.W.2d 810 (1992), in support of her argument that Dr. Johnson’s testimony was sufficient to satisfy the locality rule, arguing that Arkansas’s locality rule is not stringent because the expert in that case did not give the locality of his practice. 2024Newton cites Grice v. Atkinson, 308 Ark. 637 , 826 S.W.2d 810 (1992), in support of her argument that Dr. Johnson’s testimony was sufficient to satisfy the locality rule, arguing that Arkansas’s locality rule is not stringent because the expert in that case did not give the locality of his practice.	1	2024–2024
Corbin v. Baptist Health, Inc. neutral arkctapp · 2016 1 sentence 2024We review the admission of expert testimony under an abuse-of-discretion standard.4 In discussing our standard of review for evidentiary rulings, we have said that circuit courts have 4 Corbin v. Baptist Health, Inc., 2016 Ark.	1	2024–2024
Heritage Physician Group, P.A. v. Minton green arkctapp · 2014 2 sentences 2016In Heritage Physician Group, P.A. v. Minton, 2014 Ark. 2016App. 155, at 8 , 432 S.W.3d 682, 686-87 , we held that in order to meet the locality requirement, “there must be an attestation by an expert regarding this locality or a similar one.” (Citing Young v. Gastro-Intestinal Ctr., Inc., 361 Ark. 209 , 205 S.W.3d 741 (2005)).	1	2016–2016
Peters v. Gelb green delsuperct · 1973 2 sentences 1976If the medical profession recognizes that there are standard treatments, which should be utilized nation-wide this fact should be readily susceptible of proof under the similar locality rule, because the skill and learning should be the same and all localities would be similar. 1 See Annot, 37 ALR 3d 420 , 425; Peters v. Gelb, 303 A. 2d 685 (Del. 1976If the medical profession recognizes that there are standard treatments, which should be utilized nation-wide this fact should be readily susceptible of proof under the similar locality rule, because the skill and learning should be the same and all localities would be similar. [1] See Annot, 37 A.L.R.3d 420 , 425; Peters v. Gelb, 303 A.2d 685 (Del.Super. 1973); Rucker v. High Point Memorial Hospital, Inc., 285 N.C. 519 , 206 S.E.2d 196 (1974); Hundley v. Martinez, 151 W.Va. 977 , 158 S.E.2d 159 (1967).	1	1976–1976
Iterman v. Baker green ind · 1938 2 sentences 1976For examples of such witnesses held competent and testimony held admissible under a similar locality rule, see Dunham v. Elder, 18 Md.App. 360 , 306 A.2d 568 (1973); Sinz v. Owens, supra; Iterman v. Baker, 214 Ind. 308 , 15 N.E.2d 365 (1938); Kirchner v. Dorsey, 226 Iowa 283 , 284 N.W. 171 (1939); Turner v. Stoker, 289 S.W. 190 (Tex.Civ. 1976For examples of such witnesses held competent and testimony held admissible under a similar locality rule, see Dunham v. Elder, 18 Md.App. 360 , 306 A.2d 568 (1973); Sinz v. Owens, supra; Iterman v. Baker, 214 Ind. 308 , 15 N.E.2d 365 (1938); Kirchner v. Dorsey, 226 Iowa 283 , 284 N.W. 171 (1939); Turner v. Stoker, 289 S.W. 190 (Tex.Civ.	1	1976–1976
Kirchner v. Dorsey Dorsey green iowa · 1939 2 sentences 1976For examples of such witnesses held competent and testimony held admissible under a similar locality rule, see Dunham v. Elder, 18 Md.App. 360 , 306 A.2d 568 (1973); Sinz v. Owens, supra; Iterman v. Baker, 214 Ind. 308 , 15 N.E.2d 365 (1938); Kirchner v. Dorsey, 226 Iowa 283 , 284 N.W. 171 (1939); Turner v. Stoker, 289 S.W. 190 (Tex.Civ. 1976For examples of such witnesses held competent and testimony held admissible under a similar locality rule, see Dunham v. Elder, 18 Md.App. 360 , 306 A.2d 568 (1973); Sinz v. Owens, supra; Iterman v. Baker, 214 Ind. 308 , 15 N.E.2d 365 (1938); Kirchner v. Dorsey, 226 Iowa 283 , 284 N.W. 171 (1939); Turner v. Stoker, 289 S.W. 190 (Tex.Civ.	1	1976–1976
Dunham v. Elder green mdctspecapp · 1973 2 sentences 1976For examples of such witnesses held competent and testimony held admissible under a similar locality rule, see Dunham v. Elder, 18 Md. 1976For examples of such witnesses held competent and testimony held admissible under a similar locality rule, see Dunham v. Elder, 18 Md.App. 360 , 306 A.2d 568 (1973); Sinz v. Owens, supra; Iterman v. Baker, 214 Ind. 308 , 15 N.E.2d 365 (1938); Kirchner v. Dorsey, 226 Iowa 283 , 284 N.W. 171 (1939); Turner v. Stoker, 289 S.W. 190 (Tex.Civ.	1	1976–1976
Alfonso Sales v. Bacigalupi green calctapp · 1941 2 sentences 1976App., 1926); Riley v. Layton, 329 F.2d 53 (10 Cir., 1964); Sales v. Bacigalupi, 47 Cal. App.2d 82 , 117 P.2d 399 (1941); Dickens v. Everhart, 284 N.C. 95 , 199 S.E.2d 440 (1973). 1976App., 1926); Riley v. Layton, 329 F.2d 53 (10 Cir., 1964); Sales v. Bacigalupi, 47 Cal. App.2d 82 , 117 P.2d 399 (1941); Dickens v. Everhart, 284 N.C. 95 , 199 S.E.2d 440 (1973).	1	1976–1976
Dickens v. Everhart green nc · 1973 2 sentences 1976App., 1926); Riley v. Layton, 329 F.2d 53 (10 Cir., 1964); Sales v. Bacigalupi, 47 Cal. App.2d 82 , 117 P.2d 399 (1941); Dickens v. Everhart, 284 N.C. 95 , 199 S.E.2d 440 (1973). 1976App., 1926); Riley v. Layton, 329 F.2d 53 (10 Cir., 1964); Sales v. Bacigalupi, 47 Cal. App.2d 82 , 117 P.2d 399 (1941); Dickens v. Everhart, 284 N.C. 95 , 199 S.E.2d 440 (1973).	1	1976–1976
Richard R. Riley, Joseph Sanella and George R. Aiken v. Arla Joan Layton, an Infant, by Her Guardian Ad Litem, Arnold L. Layton, and Arnold L. Layton green ca10 · 1964 1 sentence 1976App., 1926); Riley v. Layton, 329 F.2d 53 (10 Cir., 1964); Sales v. Bacigalupi, 47 Cal. App.2d 82 , 117 P.2d 399 (1941); Dickens v. Everhart, 284 N.C. 95 , 199 S.E.2d 440 (1973).	1	1976–1976
Hundley v. Martinez green wva · 1967 2 sentences 1976If the medical profession recognizes that there are standard treatments, which should be utilized nation-wide this fact should be readily susceptible of proof under the similar locality rule, because the skill and learning should be the same and all localities would be similar. [1] See Annot, 37 A.L.R.3d 420 , 425; Peters v. Gelb, 303 A.2d 685 (Del.Super. 1973); Rucker v. High Point Memorial Hospital, Inc., 285 N.C. 519 , 206 S.E.2d 196 (1974); Hundley v. Martinez, 151 W.Va. 977 , 158 S.E.2d 159 (1967). 1976If the medical profession recognizes that there are standard treatments, which should be utilized nation-wide this fact should be readily susceptible of proof under the similar locality rule, because the skill and learning should be the same and all localities would be similar. [1] See Annot, 37 A.L.R.3d 420 , 425; Peters v. Gelb, 303 A.2d 685 (Del.Super. 1973); Rucker v. High Point Memorial Hospital, Inc., 285 N.C. 519 , 206 S.E.2d 196 (1974); Hundley v. Martinez, 151 W.Va. 977 , 158 S.E.2d 159 (1967).	1	1976–1976
Turner v. Stoker green texapp · 1926 2 sentences 1976App. 360 , 306 A. 2d 568 (1973); Sinz v. Owens, supra; Iterman v. Baker, 214 Ind. 308 , 15 N.E. 2d 365 (1938); Kirchner v. Dorsey, 226 Iowa 283 , 284 N.W. 171 (1939); Turner v. Stoker, 289 S.W. 190 (Tex. Civ. 1976For examples of such witnesses held competent and testimony held admissible under a similar locality rule, see Dunham v. Elder, 18 Md.App. 360 , 306 A.2d 568 (1973); Sinz v. Owens, supra; Iterman v. Baker, 214 Ind. 308 , 15 N.E.2d 365 (1938); Kirchner v. Dorsey, 226 Iowa 283 , 284 N.W. 171 (1939); Turner v. Stoker, 289 S.W. 190 (Tex.Civ.	1	1976–1976
Rucker v. High Point Memorial Hospital, Inc. green nc · 1974 2 sentences 1976If the medical profession recognizes that there are standard treatments, which should be utilized nation-wide this fact should be readily susceptible of proof under the similar locality rule, because the skill and learning should be the same and all localities would be similar. [1] See Annot, 37 A.L.R.3d 420 , 425; Peters v. Gelb, 303 A.2d 685 (Del.Super. 1973); Rucker v. High Point Memorial Hospital, Inc., 285 N.C. 519 , 206 S.E.2d 196 (1974); Hundley v. Martinez, 151 W.Va. 977 , 158 S.E.2d 159 (1967). 1976If the medical profession recognizes that there are standard treatments, which should be utilized nation-wide this fact should be readily susceptible of proof under the similar locality rule, because the skill and learning should be the same and all localities would be similar. [1] See Annot, 37 A.L.R.3d 420 , 425; Peters v. Gelb, 303 A.2d 685 (Del.Super. 1973); Rucker v. High Point Memorial Hospital, Inc., 285 N.C. 519 , 206 S.E.2d 196 (1974); Hundley v. Martinez, 151 W.Va. 977 , 158 S.E.2d 159 (1967).	1	1976–1976

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-206 (9)

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.

Where else courts name it

TN 43 (1986–2026) LA 39 (1978–2017) IL 18 (1976–2002) NY 15 (1923–2025) TX 14 (1979–2015) AR 12 (1976–2026) NE 12 (1980–2024) MS 12 (1982–1992) MI 10 (1976–2019) WV 7 (1982–2020) WI 6 (1973–1996) MD 5 (1975–2025) OK 5 (1982–1995) IN 5 (1987–2014) DC 5 (1967–1996) AL 4 (1980–1993) WY 4 (1989–2002) PA 4 (1971–2015) NV 3 (1979–1993) CA 3 (1980–2023) GA 3 (1983–1989) MT 3 (1985–1993) DE 3 (1982–2025) FL 3 (1961–1997) SC 3 (1984–2004) RI 3 (1992–2015) WA 3 (1972–2007) CO 3 (1900–1993) SD 2 (1988–2014) IA 2 (1976–2004) OH 2 (1975–1986) NM 2 (1977–1994) KS 2 (1968–2013) MO 2 (1980–2007) UT 2 (1905–1981) NC 2 (1974–2013)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check