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 1996–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Propst v. McNeillgreen2 sentences2021Propst v. McNeill, 326 Ark. 623 , 932 S.W.2d 766 (1996). 4 Franke attached the following exhibits: (1) Johnson County commercial property card; (2) excerpts of Holland’s deposition; (3) photographs of the property; (4) receipts for Jackson’s payments for use of the property; (5) flyer advertising “Freaky Friday Pajama Jam”; (6) flyer advertising “JJ’s Birthday Bash Pre-Game Party”; (7) photograph of picture of the tickets taken for the October 20 party; (8) excerpts of Franke’s deposition; (9) flyer advertising “JJ’s Birthday Bash”; and (10) Johnson County Sheriff’s Office incident report for 2021Propst v. McNeill, 326 Ark. 623 , 932 S.W.2d 766 (1996). 4 Franke attached the following exhibits: (1) Johnson County commercial property card; (2) excerpts of Holland’s deposition; (3) photographs of the property; (4) receipts for Jackson’s payments for use of the property; (5) flyer advertising “Freaky Friday Pajama Jam”; (6) flyer advertising “JJ’s Birthday Bash Pre-Game Party”; (7) photograph of picture of the tickets taken for the October 20 party; (8) excerpts of Franke’s deposition; (9) flyer advertising “JJ’s Birthday Bash”; and (10) Johnson County Sheriff’s Office incident report for | 3 | 5 |
Majewski v. Cantrellgreen2 sentences2017Propst v. McNeill, 326 Ark. 623, 624 , 932 S.W.2d 766, 767 (1996); see also Majewski v. Cantrell, 293 Ark. 360, 362 , 737 S.W.2d 649, 651 (1987) (stating that a lessor under common law owes no duty of repair of the premises to the lessee but that a landlord who agrees to such repairs can be held liable for them). 2017Propst v. McNeill, 326 Ark. 623, 624 , 932 S.W.2d 766, 767 (1996); see also Majewski v. Cantrell, 293 Ark. 360, 362 , 737 S.W.2d 649, 651 (1987) (stating that a lessor under common law owes no duty of repair of the premises to the lessee but that a landlord who agrees to such repairs can be held liable for them). | 2 | 2 |
Haizlip v. Rosenberggreen2 sentences1996In his first argument, Propst acknowledges that Arkansas has recognized the caveat lessee doctrine for almost a century, Haizlip v. Rozenberg, 63 Ark. 430 , 39 S.W. 60 (1897), and under that rule, unless a landlord agrees with his tenant to repair leased premises, he cannot, in the absence of statute, be compelled to do so or be held liable for repairs. 1996In his first argument, Propst acknowledges that Arkansas has recognized the caveat lessee doctrine for almost a century, Haizlip v. Rozenberg, 63 Ark. 430 , 39 S.W. 60 (1897), and under that rule, unless a landlord agrees with his tenant to repair leased premises, he cannot, in the absence of statute, be compelled to do so or be held liable for repairs. | 1 | 3 |
Stephens v. Stearnsgreen1 sentence1996See also Stephens v. Stearns, 678 P.2d 41 (Idaho 1984) (adopted rule that a landlord is under a duty to exercise reasonable care in light of all circumstances); Asper v. Heffley, 458 A.2d 1364 (Pa. Super. 1983) (negligence of the landlord is a matter for determination by the factfinder); Faureau v. Miller, 591 A.2d 68 (Vt. 1991) (landlords may be held liable for exposing their tenants to unreasonable risks of harm in the leased premises). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hadder v. Heritage Hill Manor, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Hadder v. Heritage Hill Manor, Inc., 2016 Ark. 2025Hadder v. Heritage Hill Manor, Inc., 2016 Ark. | 3 | 2017–2025 |
Kalob Franke v. Clinton William Holland Revocable Trust Uad August 9, 2010
green
2 sentences2025Id. 2025Id. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Stalter v. Akers
green
2 sentences2016In Section 1, explaining the legislative purpose and intent of this statute, our legislature declared that the Arkansas Supreme Court had “properly and correctly interpreted and applied the law and that existing law should not be altered or extended.” Id. at Section 1(c)(1). 1996Stalter v. Akers, 303 Ark. 603 , 798 S.W.2d 428 (1990); see also Majewski v. Cantrell, 293 Ark. 360 , 737 S.W.2d 649 (1987); Terry v. Cities of Helena & W. | 2 | 1996–2016 |
Hurd v. Hurt
green
2 sentences2023Arkansas has long recognized the common-law doctrine of caveat lessee, which provides that “unless a landlord agrees with his tenant to repair leased premises, he cannot, in the absence of statute, be compelled to do so or be held liable for repairs.” Hurd v. Hurt, 2017 Ark. 2023App. 228, at 4 , 519 S.W.3d 710, 712 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Bartley v. Sweetser
green
2 sentences2021After a hearing on January 28, 2020, the circuit court granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing Franke’s complaint with prejudice against appellees. 5 Relying on Bartley v. Sweetser, 319 Ark. 117 , 890 S.W.2d 250 (1994), the circuit court held that appellees owed no duty to protect Franke from the criminal act of a third party and reasoned as follows: 3 The caveat lessee doctrine is the general rule that unless a landlord agrees with his tenant to repair leased premises, he cannot, in the absence of statute, be compelled to do so or be held liable for repairs. 2021After a hearing on January 28, 2020, the circuit court granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing Franke’s complaint with prejudice against appellees. 5 Relying on Bartley v. Sweetser, 319 Ark. 117 , 890 S.W.2d 250 (1994), the circuit court held that appellees owed no duty to protect Franke from the criminal act of a third party and reasoned as follows: 3 The caveat lessee doctrine is the general rule that unless a landlord agrees with his tenant to repair leased premises, he cannot, in the absence of statute, be compelled to do so or be held liable for repairs. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Favreau v. Miller
green
1 sentence1996See also Stephens v. Stearns, 678 P.2d 41 (Idaho 1984) (adopted rule that a landlord is under a duty to exercise reasonable care in light of all circumstances); Asper v. Heffley, 458 A.2d 1364 (Pa. Super. 1983) (negligence of the landlord is a matter for determination by the factfinder); Faureau v. Miller, 591 A.2d 68 (Vt. 1991) (landlords may be held liable for exposing their tenants to unreasonable risks of harm in the leased premises). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Asper v. Haffley
green
1 sentence1996See also Stephens v. Stearns, 678 P.2d 41 (Idaho 1984) (adopted rule that a landlord is under a duty to exercise reasonable care in light of all circumstances); Asper v. Heffley, 458 A.2d 1364 (Pa. Super. 1983) (negligence of the landlord is a matter for determination by the factfinder); Faureau v. Miller, 591 A.2d 68 (Vt. 1991) (landlords may be held liable for exposing their tenants to unreasonable risks of harm in the leased premises). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sargent v. Ross
green
2 sentences1996However, Propst, citing Sargent v. Ross, 113 N.H. 388 , 308 A.2d 528 (1973), opines the caveat lessee rule of law is outdated and asserts landlords should be compelled to exercise reasonable care not to subject others to an unreasonable risk of harm. 1996However, Propst, citing Sargent v. Ross, 113 N.H. 388 , 308 A.2d 528 (1973), opines the caveat lessee rule of law is outdated and asserts landlords should be compelled to exercise reasonable care not to subject others to an unreasonable risk of harm. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.