10 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hunter v. Stategreen2 sentences2019In Hunter v. State, we affirmed the defendant’s negligent-homicide conviction, reasoning that the defendant grossly deviated from the standard of care when he ignored the double-yellow, no-passing lines in an attempt to pass a log truck while driving up a hill in 4 the rain. 341 Ark. 665, 669 , 19 S.W.3d 607, 610 (2000). 2019In Hunter v. State, we affirmed the defendant’s negligent-homicide conviction, reasoning that the defendant grossly deviated from the standard of care when he ignored the double-yellow, no-passing lines in an attempt to pass a log truck while driving up a hill in 4 the rain. 341 Ark. 665, 669 , 19 S.W.3d 607, 610 (2000). | 1 | 2 |
Hoyle v. Stategreen2 sentences2009The court concluded that Hoyle "consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death might occur if he operated a commercial vehicle after ingesting methamphetamine, and the disregard thereof constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in Hoyle's situation." Id. 2009The court concluded that Hoyle “consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death might occur if he operated a commercial vehicle after ingesting methamphetamine, and the disregard thereof constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in Hoyle’s situation.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
Graham v. Stategreen2 sentences2012When previously considering these two statutes, this court has explained that “if abuse is occurring, and the defendant is aware of that abuse, she is criminally liable if she does nothing to prevent further abuse.” Graham, 365 Ark. at 278-79 , 229 S.W.3d at 34 (footnote omitted). 2012When previously considering these two statutes, this court has explained that “if abuse is occurring, and the defendant is aware of that abuse, she is criminally liable if she does nothing to prevent further abuse.” Graham, 365 Ark. at 278-79 , 229 S.W.3d at 34 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bankston v. State
green
2 sentences2026In doing so, the court stated that the appellant’s argument that his conduct could be found to be reckless when he shot the victim in the stomach at a range of three to five feet was “wholly without merit.” Similarly, in Bankston v. State, 361 Ark. 123 , 205 S.W.3d 138 (2005), the supreme court held that firing a gun four times into a car known to be occupied went beyond a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise; thus, the circuit court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on reckless manslaughter. 2026In doing so, the court stated that the appellant’s argument that his conduct could be found to be reckless when he shot the victim in the stomach at a range of three to five feet was “wholly without merit.” Similarly, in Bankston v. State, 361 Ark. 123 , 205 S.W.3d 138 (2005), the supreme court held that firing a gun four times into a car known to be occupied went beyond a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise; thus, the circuit court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on reckless manslaughter. | 2 | 2018–2026 |
Utley v. State
green
2 sentences2019For instance, in Utley v. State, we held that the defendant’s actions constituted “a gross deviation from the standard of care” when he was driving a large commercial garbage truck on a two-lane bridge, crossed seven feet into the opposing lane, and plowed into two oncoming vehicles without braking or swerving. 366 Ark. 514 , 517– 18, 237 S.W.3d 27 , 29–30 (2006) (emphasizing the defendant’s failure to brake, swerve, or do anything to avoid the collisions). 2019For instance, in Utley v. State, we held that the defendant’s actions constituted “a gross deviation from the standard of care” when he was driving a large commercial garbage truck on a two-lane bridge, crossed seven feet into the opposing lane, and plowed into two oncoming vehicles without braking or swerving. 366 Ark. 514 , 517– 18, 237 S.W.3d 27 , 29–30 (2006) (emphasizing the defendant’s failure to brake, swerve, or do anything to avoid the collisions). | 2 | 2015–2019 |
Courtney v. State
green
1 sentence2023Also, we reject Gould’s factually unsupported suggestion that Brayfield may have been negligent by stepping into the open traffic lane and hold that “contributory negligence would not lessen [Gould’s] culpability.” See Courtney v. State, 14 Ark. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Boutin
green
2 sentences2015It does not demonstrate “a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to the actor.” In our interpretation of the negligent-homicide statute, - we find pérsuasive the reasoning of the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Boutin, 75 N.Y.2d 692 , 556 N.Y.S.2d 1 , 555 N.E.2d 253 (1990). 2015It does not demonstrate “a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to the actor.” In our interpretation of the negligent-homicide statute, - we find pérsuasive the reasoning of the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Boutin, 75 N.Y.2d 692 , 556 N.Y.S.2d 1 , 555 N.E.2d 253 (1990). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Warden v. State
neutral
1 sentence2011Warden v. State, 2011 Ark. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2009Similarly, in Smith v. State, 3 Ark.App. 224 , 623 S.W.2d 862 (1981), the court of appeals upheld a manslaughter conviction where the proof showed that the defendant acted recklessly. 2009Similarly, in Smith v. State, 3 Ark.App. 224 , 623 S.W.2d 862 (1981), the court of appeals upheld a manslaughter conviction where the proof showed that the defendant acted recklessly. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ethridge v. State
green
1 sentence1985Id. at 115 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.