certification test in Arkansas

2016The average well was estimated to produce 1.3 billion cubic feet of gas. 3 At the certification hearing, the class attorney asserted that through discovery he learned that processing the gas cost SEECO twenty-seven cents per thousand cubic feet, and SEECO deducted from royalty payments almost sixty cents per thousand cubic feet. 3 Cite as 2016 Ark. 435 gas without authorization or compensation to the owners.

2016The average well was estimated to produce 1.3 billion cubic feet of gas. 3 At the certification hearing, the class attorney asserted that through discovery he learned that processing the gas cost SEECO twenty-seven cents per thousand cubic feet, and SEECO deducted from royalty payments almost sixty cents per thousand cubic feet. 3 Cite as 2016 Ark. 435 gas without authorization or compensation to the owners.

2016The Executive Secretary will maintain and store all other files pertaining to test results, including all verbatim notes or records, transcripts, and other papers used in 4 Cite as 2016 Ark. 317 connection with testing for a period of two years following the date of testing, at which time the Executive Secretary may dispose of said files.

2014Each individual successfully passing the certification examination shall, prior to receiving certification from the Board, participate in an orientation session at a time and place set by the Board. 3 Cite as 2014 Ark. 167 Section 17 The Executive Secretary of the Board will forward the files containing the names and pertinent information including address, phone number, and email address for all individuals who have passed the certification test to the Supreme Court Clerk's office where said files will be maintained and stored.

2014The Executive Secretary will maintain and store all other files pertaining to test results, including all verbatim notes or records, transcripts, and other papers used in connection with testing for a period of two years following the date of testing, at which time the Executive 3 Cite as 2014 Ark. 320 Secretary may dispose of said files.

2005Thus, to be sanctionable under the rule as amended in 1993, an oral representation must meet two requirements: “(1) it must violate the certification requirement of Rule 11(b), e.g., by advocating baseless allegations, and (2) it must relate directly to a matter addressed in the underlying paper and be in furtherance of that matter to constitute advocating within the meaning of subsection (b).” O’Brien v. Alexander, 101 F.3d 1479 , 1490 (2d Cir. 1996).

2005Thus, to be sanctionable under the rule as amended in 1993, an oral representation must meet two requirements: "(1) it must violate the certification requirement of Rule 11(b), e.g., by advocating baseless allegations, and (2) it must relate directly to a matter addressed in the underlying paper and be in furtherance of that matter to constitute advocating within the meaning of subsection (b)." O'Brien v. Alexander, 101 F.3d 1479 , 1490 (2d Cir.1996).

1999See also Gipson, 724 So.2d 530 (holding that a physician's failure of a certification test is irrelevant to the issue of his or her negligence in a malpractice case); Williams, 218 Ga.App. 107 , 460 S.E.2d 558 (explaining that such evidence has little, if any, relevance to the issue of whether the physician complied with the standard of care required in his or her treatment of a patient).

1999See also Gipson, 724 So.2d 530 (holding that a physician’s failure of a certification test is irrelevant to the issue of his or her negligence in a malpractice case); Williams, 460 S.E.2d 558 (explaining that such evidence has little, if any, relevance to the issue of whether the physician complied with the standard of care required in his or her treatment of a patient).

1999Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), in part because the programs' proponents presented specific evidence of drug use among the persons to whom the testing requirements applied — railroad employees and school children. 1 Another rationale advanced in support of the certification requirement challenged in Chandler was that it served to deter unlawful drug users from becoming candidates and thus stopped them from attaining high state office.

1996Id. at 281 , 895 S.W.2d at 932 .

1996Id. at 281 , 895 S.W.2d at 932 .

1987In Allen v. Titsworth, 279 Ark. 138 , 649 S.W.2d 185 (1983), the Court reviewed a Chancellor's decree which included the invalidation of all actions taken by a chief of police during the period of non-certification.

1987In Allen v. Titsworth, 279 Ark. 138 , 649 S.W.2d 185 (1983), the Court reviewed a Chancellor's decree which included the invalidation of all actions taken by a chief of police during the period of non-certification.