discussed doctrine in Arkansas

2012This court discussed the claim of intrusion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee, 348 Ark. 707, 719-20 , 74 S.W.3d 634, 644 (2002): In Dodrill v. Arkansas Democrat Co., 265 Ark. 628 , 590 S.W.2d 840 (1979), this court adopted the approach of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which delineates four separate torts grouped under “invasion of privacy.” The privacy tort covers behavior harmful to the plaintiff even though there is no injury to his reputation.

2012This court discussed the claim of intrusion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee, 348 Ark. 707, 719-20 , 74 S.W.3d 634, 644 (2002): In Dodrill v. Arkansas Democrat Co., 265 Ark. 628 , 590 S.W.2d 840 (1979), this court adopted the approach of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which delineates four separate torts grouped under “invasion of privacy.” The privacy tort covers behavior harmful to the plaintiff even though there is no injury to his reputation.

2012Dunlap v. McCarty, 284 Ark. 5 , 678 S.W.2d 361 (1984).

2012Dunlap v. McCarty, 284 Ark. 5 , 678 S.W.2d 361 (1984).

2010Serv., L.L.C , 262 B.R. 781 , 785 (E.D.

2010Ouachita R.R., Inc. v. Circuit Court of Union County, 361 Ark. 333 , 206 S.W.3d 811 (2005); Monroe Auto Equip.

2010Ouachita R.R., Inc. v. Circuit Court of Union County, 361 Ark. 333 , 206 S.W.3d 811 (2005); Monroe Auto Equip.

2010Co. , 120 Ark. 221 , 179 S.W. 358 (1915), the court discussed the rule that contracts for personal services are not generally subject to assignment and held that "a personal services contract contains obligations involving `such a relation of personal confidence' that the parties intend performance solely by the party obligated." In re National Hydro-Vac Indus.

2010Co. , 120 Ark. 221 , 179 S.W. 358 (1915), the court discussed the rule that contracts for personal services are not generally subject to assignment and held that "a personal services contract contains obligations involving `such a relation of personal confidence' that the parties intend performance solely by the party obligated." In re National Hydro-Vac Indus.

2007Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes, & Lerach, LLP v. State, 342 Ark. 303 , 28 S.W.3d 842 (2000); State Office of Child Support Enforcem’t v. Mitchell, 330 Ark. 338 , 954 S.W.2d 907 (1997).

2007Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes, & Lerach, LLP v. State, 342 Ark. 303 , 28 S.W.3d 842 (2000); State Office of Child Support Enforcem’t v. Mitchell, 330 Ark. 338 , 954 S.W.2d 907 (1997).

2007Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes, & Lerach, LLP v. State, 342 Ark. 303 , 28 S.W.3d 842 (2000); State Office of Child Support Enforcem’t v. Mitchell, 330 Ark. 338 , 954 S.W.2d 907 (1997).

2007Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes, & Lerach, LLP v. State, 342 Ark. 303 , 28 S.W.3d 842 (2000); State Office of Child Support Enforcem’t v. Mitchell, 330 Ark. 338 , 954 S.W.2d 907 (1997).

2007In Goss, 344 Ark. 523, 526 , 42 S.W.3d 440, 442-43 , this court discussed the doctrine of sovereign immunity and explained: Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit.

2007In Goss, 344 Ark. 523, 526 , 42 S.W.3d 440, 442-43 , this court discussed the doctrine of sovereign immunity and explained: Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit.

2004Grissom v. Hill, 17 Ark. 483 (1856); Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy, 84 Ark. 497 (1907).The essence of the doctrine is that agencies, trusts, etc., created and maintained exclusively for charity may not have their assets diminished by execution in favor of one injured by acts of persons charged with duties under the agency or trust.

2004Grissom v. Hill, 17 Ark. 483 (1856); Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy, 84 Ark. 497 (1907).The essence of the doctrine is that agencies, trusts, etc., created and maintained exclusively for charity may not have their assets diminished by execution in favor of one injured by acts of persons charged with duties under the agency or trust.

2003In McCarroll v. Farrar, 199 Ark. 320 , 134 S.W.2d 561 (1939), this court discussed that the doctrine of res judicata precluded a subsequent suit by another taxpayer under article 16, section 13, because a case under article 16, section 13, is a case under virtual representation and every citizen is regarded as a party to the proceedings.

2003In McCarroll v. Farrar, 199 Ark. 320 , 134 S.W.2d 561 (1939), this court discussed that the doctrine of res judicata precluded a subsequent suit by another taxpayer under article 16, section 13, because a case under article 16, section 13, is a case under virtual representation and every citizen is regarded as a party to the proceedings.

1997In Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W.2d 154 (1980), this court discussed this exception as follows: In two cases in which the death penalty was imposed, we did not require an objection to the trial court’s failure to bring to the jury’s attention a matter essential to its consideration of the death penalty itself.

1997In Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980), this court discussed this exception as follows: In two cases in which the death penalty was imposed, we did not require an objection to the trial court's failure to bring to the jury's attention a matter essential to its consideration of the death penalty itself.

1997In Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W.2d 154 (1980), this court discussed this exception as follows: In two cases in which the death penalty was imposed, we did not require an objection to the trial court’s failure to bring to the jury’s attention a matter essential to its consideration of the death penalty itself.

1986Comm’n, 227 Ark. 1066 , 304 S.W.2d 297 (1957), this court discussed the standard of review in these cases: The purpose of any Court appeal from an assessment or equalizing agency is to see that the assessment is neither erroneous in figures, nor arbitrary in measuring, nor confiscatory in results.

1986Comm’n, 227 Ark. 1066 , 304 S.W.2d 297 (1957), this court discussed the standard of review in these cases: The purpose of any Court appeal from an assessment or equalizing agency is to see that the assessment is neither erroneous in figures, nor arbitrary in measuring, nor confiscatory in results.

1981In Little Rock Municipal Airport Commission v. Arkansas Valley Compress and Warehouse Co., 224 Ark. 1018 , 111 S.W. 2d 836 , this Court discussed the doctrine of unjust enrichment and said, in part: The basis of the right to recover is that the defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff, and that plaintiff is entitled to restitution therefor.

1938Co. v. Steel, 129 Ark. 520 , 197 S. W. 288 , the court discussed the rule as to presumption of negligence and burden of proof, in cases where injury was caused by running of trains, and stated that there was no such presumption under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. 45 U.S.C.A., §§ 51-59 .

1938Co. v. Steel, 129 Ark. 520 , 197 S. W. 288 , the court discussed the rule as to presumption of negligence and burden of proof, in cases where injury was caused by running of trains, and stated that there was no such presumption under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. 45 U.S.C.A., §§ 51-59 .