434 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 118 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grant v. Stategreen2 sentences2024The abuse of discretion standard “is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the trial court’s decision, but requires that the trial court acted improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.” Grant v. State, 357 Ark. 91, 93 , 161 S.W.3d 785, 786 (2004). 2024The abuse of discretion standard “is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the trial court’s decision, but requires that the trial court acted improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.” Grant v. State, 357 Ark. 91, 93 , 161 S.W.3d 785, 786 (2004). | 11 | 21 |
Flanery v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Flanery v. State, 362 Ark. 311 , 208 S.W.3d 187 (2005). 2023Flanery v. State, 362 Ark. 311 , 208 S.W.3d 187 (2005). | 5 | 10 |
Nucor Corp. v. Kilmangreen2 sentences2012See Nucor Corp. v. Kilman, 358 Ark. 107 , 186 S.W.3d 720 (2004) (stating that it is a question of law involv ing no discretion with the trial court when the appellant claims that the default judgment is void, and we therefore review the granting or denial of such a motion to set aside a default judgment using a de novo standard rather than an abuse-of-discretion standard). 2012See Nucor Corp. v. Kilman, 358 Ark. 107 , 186 S.W.3d 720 (2004) (stating that it is a question of law involv ing no discretion with the trial court when the appellant claims that the default judgment is void, and we therefore review the granting or denial of such a motion to set aside a default judgment using a de novo standard rather than an abuse-of-discretion standard). | 4 | 8 |
Hawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Hawkins v. State, 348 Ark. 384 , 72 S.W.3d 493 (2002). 2017See Hawkins v. State, 348 Ark. 384 , 72 S.W.3d 493 (2002). | 4 | 4 |
Rodgers v. Stategreen2 sentences2018E.g. , Maiden v. State , 2014 Ark. 294 , at 4, 438 S.W.3d 263 , 268 ; see also Rodgers v. State , 360 Ark. 24 , 27, 199 S.W.3d 625 , 627 (2004) (appellate courts review matters concerning the scope of cross-examination under an abuse-of-discretion standard). 2018E.g. , Maiden v. State , 2014 Ark. 294 , at 4, 438 S.W.3d 263 , 268 ; see also Rodgers v. State , 360 Ark. 24 , 27, 199 S.W.3d 625 , 627 (2004) (appellate courts review matters concerning the scope of cross-examination under an abuse-of-discretion standard). | 3 | 4 |
Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Huffgreen2 sentences2008See Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Huff, 347 Ark. 553 , 65 S.W.3d 880 (2002). 2008See Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Huff, 347 Ark. 553 , 65 S.W.3d 880 (2002). | 3 | 4 |
| Clark v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| Miller v. Leathersgreen | 3 | 3 |
Gulley v. Stategreen2 sentences2025The case is all about one patient, and whether alleged negligence by multiple defendants rendering her medical care resulted in injuries in two causally related incidents. 1 Jon contends that we should sustain the default judgment regardless under the abuse- of-discretion standard unless the circuit court acted “improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.” E.g., Gulley v. State, 2012 Ark. 368, at 10 , 423 S.W.3d 569, 576 (stating standard of review). 2025The case is all about one patient, and whether alleged negligence by multiple defendants rendering her medical care resulted in injuries in two causally related incidents. 1 Jon contends that we should sustain the default judgment regardless under the abuse- of-discretion standard unless the circuit court acted “improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.” E.g., Gulley v. State, 2012 Ark. 368, at 10 , 423 S.W.3d 569, 576 (stating standard of review). | 2 | 9 |
Creed v. Stategreen2 sentences2021He asserts that he requested a continuance to hire new counsel stating that he had the funds to do so, he was prevented from hiring counsel sooner because the prison denied him access to the telephone, and he suffered prejudice “as he was forced to trial without counsel of his own choosing.” We review the denial of a motion for continuance under an abuse-of-discretion standard, and an appellant must demonstrate that the circuit court’s abuse of its discretion resulted in prejudice amounting to a denial of justice. 7 Prejudice is not presumed. 8 Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.3 provides 2021He asserts that he requested a continuance to hire new counsel stating that he had the funds to do so, he was prevented from hiring counsel sooner because the prison denied him access to the telephone, and he suffered prejudice “as he was forced to trial without counsel of his own choosing.” We review the denial of a motion for continuance under an abuse-of-discretion standard, and an appellant must demonstrate that the circuit court’s abuse of its discretion resulted in prejudice amounting to a denial of justice. 7 Prejudice is not presumed. 8 Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.3 provides | 2 | 6 |
Chatmon v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Winters v. State, 301 Ark. 127, 133 , 782 S.W.2d 566 , 569–70 (1990); see also Chatmon v. State, 2015 Ark. 28, at 10 , 467 S.W.3d 731, 737 . 2024Winters v. State, 301 Ark. 127, 133 , 782 S.W.2d 566 , 569–70 (1990); see also Chatmon v. State, 2015 Ark. 28, at 10 , 467 S.W.3d 731, 737 . | 2 | 5 |
| Maxxi L. Brooks v. State of Arkansasgreen | 2 | 3 |
| Jonesboro Healthcare Center, LLC v. Eaton-Moery Environmental Services, Inc.green | 2 | 3 |
| AJ & K Operating Co., Inc. v. Smithgreen | 2 | 3 |
| Webb v. Lambertgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Shaffer v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Flando Montgomery v. State of Arkansasgreen | 2 | 2 |
Hortenberry v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Hortenberry v. State, 2017 Ark. 261 , 526 S.W.3d 840 . 2025Hortenberry v. State, 2017 Ark. 261 , 526 S.W.3d 840 . | 1 | 9 |
Ward v. Dapper Dan Cleaners and Laundry, Inc.green2 sentences1998The Supreme Court reviews a trial court's determination of whether a violation of this rule occurred under an abuse-of-discretion standard. *251 Ward v. Dapper Dan Cleaners & Laundry, Inc., 309 Ark. 192 , 828 S.W.2d 833 (1992). 1998The Supreme Court reviews a trial court's determination of whether a violation of this rule occurred under an abuse-of-discretion standard. *251 Ward v. Dapper Dan Cleaners & Laundry, Inc., 309 Ark. 192 , 828 S.W.2d 833 (1992). | 1 | 8 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2008We review a denial of a motion for continuance under an abuse-of-discretion standard, see, e.g., Smith v. State, 352 Ark. 92 , 98 S.W.3d 433 (2003), and an appellant must demonstrate that the trial court’s abuse of its discretion resulted in prejudice amounting to a denial of justice. 2008We review a denial of a motion for continuance under an abuse-of-discretion standard, see, e.g., Smith v. State, 352 Ark. 92 , 98 S.W.3d 433 (2003), and an appellant must demonstrate that the trial court’s abuse of its discretion resulted in prejudice amounting to a denial of justice. | 1 | 6 |
Hunter v. Runyangreen2 sentences2015In Hunter v. Runyan, 2011 Ark. 43 , 382 S.W.3d 643 , this court stated: Permissive intervention is a matter within the circuit court’s discretion and is subject to the abuse-of-discretion standard of review. 2015In Hunter v. Runyan, 2011 Ark. 43 , 382 S.W.3d 643 , this court stated: Permissive intervention is a matter within the circuit court’s discretion and is subject to the abuse-of-discretion standard of review. | 1 | 4 |
Collins v. Hintongreen2 sentences2016Crowell v. Barker, 369 Ark. 428 , 255 S.W.3d 858 (2007) (citing Collins v. Hinton, 327 Ark. 159 , 937 S.W.2d 164 (1997)). 2016Crowell v. Barker, 369 Ark. 428 , 255 S.W.3d 858 (2007) (citing Collins v. Hinton, 327 Ark. 159 , 937 S.W.2d 164 (1997)). | 1 | 4 |
Sims v. Mosergreen2 sentences2014Sims v. Moser, 373 Ark. 491 , 284 S.W.3d 505 (2008). 2014Sims v. Moser, 373 Ark. 491 , 284 S.W.3d 505 (2008). | 1 | 4 |
| Tobacco Superstore, Inc. v. Darroughgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Desoto Gathering Co. v. Hillgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Green v. Alpharma, Inc.green | 1 | 3 |
| City of North Little Rock v. Pfeifergreen | 1 | 3 |
| Threadgill v. Stategreen | 1 | 3 |
| Cheqnet Systems, Inc. v. Montgomerygreen | 1 | 3 |
| Seeco, Inc. v. Stewmongreen | 1 | 2 |
| Lenard v. Kelleygreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ferguson v. State
neutral
2 sentences2025Ferguson v. State, 2016 Ark. 319 , 498 S.W.3d 733 . 2025Ferguson v. State, 2016 Ark. 319 , 498 S.W.3d 733 . | 7 | 2018–2025 |
Baptist Health v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2025Id. 2025Id. | 6 | 2018–2025 |
Holland v. State
green
2 sentences2019“The abuse-of-discretion standard is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the circuit court’s decision, but requires that the circuit court act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.” Holland v. State, 2015 Ark. 341, at 7 , 471 S.W.3d 179, 184 . 2019“The abuse-of-discretion standard is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the circuit court’s decision, but requires that the circuit court act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.” Holland v. State, 2015 Ark. 341, at 7 , 471 S.W.3d 179, 184 . | 5 | 2016–2025 |
The Ballard Grp. Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.
green
2 sentences2017As our supreme court noted in Ballard Group, Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc., 2014 Ark. 276 at 5 , 436 S.W.3d 445, 449 , [generally speaking, the granting of both a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and a Rule 41(b) dismissal are reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard. 2017As our supreme court noted in Ballard Group, Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc., 2014 Ark. 276 at 5 , 436 S.W.3d 445, 449 , [generally speaking, the granting of both a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and a Rule 41(b) dismissal are reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard. | 5 | 2016–2023 |
Lone v. Koch
neutral
2 sentences2021The abuse-of-discretion standard is “a high threshold that does not simply require error in the circuit court’s decision, but requires that the circuit court act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.” Lone v. Koch, 2015 Ark. 2019The abuse- of-discretion standard is “a high threshold that does not simply require error in the circuit court’s decision, but requires that the circuit court act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.” Lone v. Koch, 2015 Ark. | 5 | 2015–2021 |
Crowell v. Barker
neutral
2 sentences2016Crowell v. Barker, 369 Ark. 428 , 255 S.W.3d 858 (2007) (citing Collins v. Hinton, 327 Ark. 159 , 937 S.W.2d 164 (1997)). 2016Crowell v. Barker, 369 Ark. 428 , 255 S.W.3d 858 (2007) (citing Collins v. Hinton, 327 Ark. 159 , 937 S.W.2d 164 (1997)). | 5 | 2008–2016 |
Dunn v. Womack
neutral
2 sentences2026Dunn v. Womack, 2011 Ark. 2017Dunn v. Womack, 2011 Ark. | 4 | 2013–2026 |
Layman v. Bone
green
2 sentences2024Layman v. Bone, 333 Ark. 121 , 967 S.W.2d 561 (1998). 2001Just as Rule 55(a) states that a default judgment “may be entered” by the trial court, Rule 55(c) states that the court “may, upon motion, set aside a default judgment.” Therefore, the reasoning of Layman v. Bone, id., is applicable, and we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing the trial court’s granting of a default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(c). | 4 | 2001–2024 |
Steele v. Lyon
green
2 sentences2024Steele v. Lyon, 2015 Ark. 2020The abuse-of-discretion standard “is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the trial court’s decision, but requires that the trial court act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.” Id. (quoting Gully v. State, 2012 Ark. 368, at 10 , 423 S.W.3d 569, 576 ). | 4 | 2016–2024 |
City of Jacksonville v. Smith
green
2 sentences2021In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the circuit court must consider two issues: (1) whether irreparable harm will result in the absence of an injunction or restraining order and (2) whether the moving party has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 8 The appellate court reviews the grant of a preliminary injunction under an abuse-of-discretion standard. 9 In 8 City of Jacksonville v. Smith, 2018 Ark. 87 , 540 S.W.3d 661 . 9 Id. 11 considering an appeal of an order granting a preliminary injunction, the appellat 2021In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the circuit court must consider two issues: (1) whether irreparable harm will result in the absence of an injunction or restraining order and (2) whether the moving party has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 8 The appellate court reviews the grant of a preliminary injunction under an abuse-of-discretion standard. 9 In 8 City of Jacksonville v. Smith, 2018 Ark. 87 , 540 S.W.3d 661 . 9 Id. 11 considering an appeal of an order granting a preliminary injunction, the appellat | 4 | 2021–2024 |
Scamardo v. State
green
2 sentences2020The abuse-of-discretion standard ‘is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the circuit court’s decision, but requires that the circuit court act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.’ Nor will we reverse absent a showing of prejudice.” Scamardo v. State, 2013 Ark. 163, at 7 , 426 S.W.3d 900 , 904 (internal citations omitted). 2013The abuse-of-discretion standard “is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the circuit court’s decision, but requires that the circuit court act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.” Scamardo v. State, 2013 Ark. 163, at 7 , 426 S.W.3d 900 , (quoting Grant v. State, 357 Ark. 91, 93 , 161 S.W.3d 785, 786 (2004)). | 4 | 2013–2020 |
Buckley v. State
green
2 sentences2016Because this issue deals with evidentiary rulings by the trial court, which are subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard, the Buckley court held that such rulings “simply must be raised below before this court will consider them on appeal.” [Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002)]. 2016Because this issue deals with evidentiary rulings by the trial court, which are subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard, the Buckley court held that such rulings “simply must be raised below before this court will consider them on appeal.” [Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002)]. | 4 | 2005–2016 |
Parker v. State
green
2 sentences2003Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Huff, 347 Ark. 553 , 65 S.W.3d 880 (2002); *531 Parker v. State, 333 Ark. 137 , 968 S.W.2d 592 (1998). 2003Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Huff, 347 Ark. 553 , 65 S.W.3d 880 (2002); *531 Parker v. State, 333 Ark. 137 , 968 S.W.2d 592 (1998). | 4 | 1999–2003 |
Risie Howard, as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Mrs. George Howard Jr. (Vivian) v. Baptist Health A/K/A Baptist Health Home Health Network Diamond Risk Insurance Company, LLC John Harris, M.D. Leah Willett, B.S.N., R.N., Individually Alicia Brucks, S.L.P., Individually And Brandy M. Cantwell, P.T., Individually
green
2 sentences2026See, e.g., Stuart v. Walther, 2024 Ark. 41 , 686 S.W.3d 486 ; Howard v. Baptist Health, 2022 Ark. 214 , 654 S.W.3d 809 ; Turnbow v. Hiegel Bldg. 2026See, e.g., Stuart v. Walther, 2024 Ark. 41 , 686 S.W.3d 486 ; Howard v. Baptist Health, 2022 Ark. 214 , 654 S.W.3d 809 ; Turnbow v. Hiegel Bldg. | 3 | 2023–2026 |
Baumann v. State
green
2 sentences2026Baumann v. State, 2018 Ark. 2026Baumann v. State, 2018 Ark. | 3 | 2025–2026 |
| Montrell Dashone Ventry v. State of Arkansas green | 3 | 2022–2025 |
| Vance v. State green | 3 | 2024–2024 |
| HARRY McDERMOTT AND ANGELA BLEVINS v. JAMES M. CLINE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE JAMES M. CLINE AND SUSAN CLINE TRUST neutral | 3 | 2020–2023 |
| Tristan Tiarks v. State of Arkansas green | 3 | 2022–2023 |
| Maiden v. State green | 3 | 2018–2021 |
| Dickey v. State green | 3 | 2010–2019 |
| Davis v. Williamson green | 3 | 2006–2017 |
| Billabong Products, Inc. v. Orange City Bank green | 3 | 2011–2016 |
| Estate of Coan v. Gaughan neutral | 3 | 2011–2012 |
| Harris v. City of Fort Smith green | 3 | 2007–2010 |
| Williams v. Martin green | 3 | 1999–2004 |
| Hill v. State green | 2 | 2018–2025 |
| Haskins v. State green | 2 | 2021–2025 |
| Frederick R. Potter, Individually and as Trustee of the Frederick R. Potter Revocable Trust Established September 10, 2004, and as Trustee of the Fred Potter Revocable Trust Established July 10, 2013 v. Cassaundra Holmes, Individually and as Trustee of the Betty L. Potter Revocable Trust Established September 10, 2004, and Thomas Wright and Kevin Wright green | 2 | 2024–2025 |
| Timothy Justin Joyner v. State of Arkansas neutral | 2 | 2023–2025 |
| Winters v. State green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| JOHN THURSTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ARKANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE AND LESLIE RUTLEDGE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SAFE SURGERY ARKANSAS, A BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEE AND DR. LAURIE BARBER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF SAFE SURGERY ARKANSAS green | 2 | 2023–2024 |
| Irvin v. State green | 2 | 2016–2024 |
| Corbin v. Baptist Health, Inc. neutral | 2 | 2018–2024 |
| Park Apartments At Fayetteville, LP v. Plants neutral | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| Bobby Kellensworth v. State of Arkansas green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| Larimore v. State green | 2 | 1996–2023 |
| Eric Jerome Lacy v. State of Arkansas neutral | 2 | 2020–2023 |
| Ellis v. State green | 2 | 2019–2022 |
| Tarver v. State green | 2 | 2019–2022 |
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.