Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reynolds v. Stategreen2 sentences1990See Reynolds v. State, 282 Ark. 98 , 666 S.W.2d 396 (1984). 1990See Reynolds v. State, 282 Ark. 98 , 666 S.W.2d 396 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walker v. State
neutral
2 sentences1991Boone v. State, 270 Ark. 83 , 603 S.W.2d 410 (1980); Walker v. State, 262 Ark. 215 , 555 S.W.2d 228 (1977); Blake v. State, 262 Ark. 301 , 556 S.W.2d 427 (1977); Lincoln v. State, 262 Ark. 511 , 558 S.W.2d 146 (1977). 1991Boone v. State, 270 Ark. 83 , 603 S.W.2d 410 (1980); Walker v. State, 262 Ark. 215 , 555 S.W.2d 228 (1977); Blake v. State, 262 Ark. 301 , 556 S.W.2d 427 (1977); Lincoln v. State, 262 Ark. 511 , 558 S.W.2d 146 (1977). | 3 | 1980–1991 |
Carter v. State
green
2 sentences2026In Carter v. State, 350 Ark. 229 , 85 S.W.3d 914 (2002), the supreme court analyzed the statutory exceptions for extending a circuit court’s probation jurisdiction, which at that time were codified at Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-309(e) (Supp. 2001).4 The supreme court held that under the plain language of section 5-4-309(e), revocation of probation subsequent to the expiration of the probation period is authorized only upon an arrest for violation of probation or when “a warrant is issued for [an] arrest for violation of . . . probation” during the probation period. 2026In Carter v. State, 350 Ark. 229 , 85 S.W.3d 914 (2002), the supreme court analyzed the statutory exceptions for extending a circuit court’s probation jurisdiction, which at that time were codified at Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-309(e) (Supp. 2001).4 The supreme court held that under the plain language of section 5-4-309(e), revocation of probation subsequent to the expiration of the probation period is authorized only upon an arrest for violation of probation or when “a warrant is issued for [an] arrest for violation of . . . probation” during the probation period. | 2 | 2003–2026 |
Blake v. State
green
2 sentences1991Boone v. State, 270 Ark. 83 , 603 S.W.2d 410 (1980); Walker v. State, 262 Ark. 215 , 555 S.W.2d 228 (1977); Blake v. State, 262 Ark. 301 , 556 S.W.2d 427 (1977); Lincoln v. State, 262 Ark. 511 , 558 S.W.2d 146 (1977). 1991Boone v. State, 270 Ark. 83 , 603 S.W.2d 410 (1980); Walker v. State, 262 Ark. 215 , 555 S.W.2d 228 (1977); Blake v. State, 262 Ark. 301 , 556 S.W.2d 427 (1977); Lincoln v. State, 262 Ark. 511 , 558 S.W.2d 146 (1977). | 2 | 1980–1991 |
Lincoln v. State
neutral
2 sentences1991Boone v. State, 270 Ark. 83 , 603 S.W.2d 410 (1980); Walker v. State, 262 Ark. 215 , 555 S.W.2d 228 (1977); Blake v. State, 262 Ark. 301 , 556 S.W.2d 427 (1977); Lincoln v. State, 262 Ark. 511 , 558 S.W.2d 146 (1977). 1991Boone v. State, 270 Ark. 83 , 603 S.W.2d 410 (1980); Walker v. State, 262 Ark. 215 , 555 S.W.2d 228 (1977); Blake v. State, 262 Ark. 301 , 556 S.W.2d 427 (1977); Lincoln v. State, 262 Ark. 511 , 558 S.W.2d 146 (1977). | 2 | 1980–1991 |
Trif v. State
green
2 sentences2020App. 452 , 503 S.W.3d 802 . 3 Id. 2 period.4 Here, the State presented evidence that a warrant was issued for appellant’s arrest in August 2015 for violating his probation, and it was returned in September 2015. 2020The issue of whether a circuit court can revoke probation after the expiration of the probation period is one of jurisdiction.2 Although appellant did not raise a jurisdictional argument below, whether a circuit court has jurisdiction to revoke probation is an argument that we may address for the first time on appeal.3 A court may revoke probation subsequent to its expiration in several situations, including if the defendant is arrested for the violation or if a warrant is issued for the defendant’s arrest for violation prior to the expiration of the probationary 2 Trif v. State, 2016 Ark. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Hester v. State
neutral
1 sentence2017The probation officer did not put the arrest in her violation report though she did not remember why she failed to do so; appellant had claimed he was “trying to protect, so to speak[.]” 6 Appellant arrived at the hearing while testimony was being given. 3 Cite as 2017 Ark. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Price v. Morris
neutral
2 sentences1994His argument, however, as indicated earlier, is based on the probable-cause defense to an action for malicious prosecution, and all of his authorities — Culpepper v. Smith, 302 Ark. 558 , 792 S.W.2d 293 (1990); Price v. Morris, 122 Ark. 382 , 183 S.W. 180 (1916); Laster v. Bragg, 107 Ark. 74 , 153 S.W. 1116 (1913); L.B. 1994His argument, however, as indicated earlier, is based on the probable-cause defense to an action for malicious prosecution, and all of his authorities — Culpepper v. Smith, 302 Ark. 558 , 792 S.W.2d 293 (1990); Price v. Morris, 122 Ark. 382 , 183 S.W. 180 (1916); Laster v. Bragg, 107 Ark. 74 , 153 S.W. 1116 (1913); L.B. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Culpepper v. Smith
green
2 sentences1994His argument, however, as indicated earlier, is based on the probable-cause defense to an action for malicious prosecution, and all of his authorities — Culpepper v. Smith, 302 Ark. 558 , 792 S.W.2d 293 (1990); Price v. Morris, 122 Ark. 382 , 183 S.W. 180 (1916); Laster v. Bragg, 107 Ark. 74 , 153 S.W. 1116 (1913); L.B. 1994His argument, however, as indicated earlier, is based on the probable-cause defense to an action for malicious prosecution, and all of his authorities — Culpepper v. Smith, 302 Ark. 558 , 792 S.W.2d 293 (1990); Price v. Morris, 122 Ark. 382 , 183 S.W. 180 (1916); Laster v. Bragg, 107 Ark. 74 , 153 S.W. 1116 (1913); L.B. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Laster v. Bragg
neutral
2 sentences1994His argument, however, as indicated earlier, is based on the probable-cause defense to an action for malicious prosecution, and all of his authorities — Culpepper v. Smith, 302 Ark. 558 , 792 S.W.2d 293 (1990); Price v. Morris, 122 Ark. 382 , 183 S.W. 180 (1916); Laster v. Bragg, 107 Ark. 74 , 153 S.W. 1116 (1913); L.B. 1994His argument, however, as indicated earlier, is based on the probable-cause defense to an action for malicious prosecution, and all of his authorities — Culpepper v. Smith, 302 Ark. 558 , 792 S.W.2d 293 (1990); Price v. Morris, 122 Ark. 382 , 183 S.W. 180 (1916); Laster v. Bragg, 107 Ark. 74 , 153 S.W. 1116 (1913); L.B. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Boone v. State
green
2 sentences1991Boone v. State, 270 Ark. 83 , 603 S.W.2d 410 (1980); Walker v. State, 262 Ark. 215 , 555 S.W.2d 228 (1977); Blake v. State, 262 Ark. 301 , 556 S.W.2d 427 (1977); Lincoln v. State, 262 Ark. 511 , 558 S.W.2d 146 (1977). 1991Boone v. State, 270 Ark. 83 , 603 S.W.2d 410 (1980); Walker v. State, 262 Ark. 215 , 555 S.W.2d 228 (1977); Blake v. State, 262 Ark. 301 , 556 S.W.2d 427 (1977); Lincoln v. State, 262 Ark. 511 , 558 S.W.2d 146 (1977). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Munn v. State
green
2 sentences1985Munn v. State, 257 Ark. 1057 , 521 S.W.2d 535 (1975). 1985Munn v. State, 257 Ark. 1057 , 521 S.W.2d 535 (1975). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.