10 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1989–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rose v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See id.; see also Rose v. State, 2015 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Holt v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Holt v. State, 2011 Ark. 391 , 384 S.W.3d 498 ; Young v. State, 371 Ark. 393 , 266 S.W.3d 744 (2007). 2017See Holt v. State, 2011 Ark. 391 , 384 S.W.3d 498 ; Young v. State, 371 Ark. 393 , 266 S.W.3d 744 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holland v. State
green
2 sentences2025This court has previously held that “a person’s license or privilege to enter a home is revoked once that person inflicts injury upon the owner.” Holland v. State, 2017 Ark. 2025App. 49, at 5 , 510 S.W.3d 311, 314 . | 2 | 2021–2025 |
LeFlore v. State
green
2 sentences2022App. 117 , 704 S.W.2d 641 (1986) (a defendant’s license or privilege to go into one section of the courthouse for the purpose of retrieving his tools did not authorize him to go into other unauthorized areas for the purpose of committing theft). 2022App. 117 , 704 S.W.2d 641 (1986) (a defendant’s license or privilege to go into one section of the courthouse for the purpose of retrieving his tools did not authorize him to go into other unauthorized areas for the purpose of committing theft). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Baker v. State
neutral
1 sentence2025App. 385 , 555 S.W.3d 413 . 4 Baker, supra. 5 Id. 6 (Repl. 2022). 3 (a)(1) Any person whose driver’s license or driving privilege as a resident or nonresident has been cancelled, suspended, or revoked as provided in this chapter and who drives any motor vehicle upon the highways of this state while the license or privilege is cancelled, suspended, or revoked is guilty of a misdemeanor. (2) Upon conviction, an offender shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two (2) days not more than six (6) months, and there may be imposed in addition thereto a fine of not more than five hundred d | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Vangilder v. State
neutral
1 sentence2025App. 385 , 555 S.W.3d 413 . 4 Baker, supra. 5 Id. 6 (Repl. 2022). 3 (a)(1) Any person whose driver’s license or driving privilege as a resident or nonresident has been cancelled, suspended, or revoked as provided in this chapter and who drives any motor vehicle upon the highways of this state while the license or privilege is cancelled, suspended, or revoked is guilty of a misdemeanor. (2) Upon conviction, an offender shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two (2) days not more than six (6) months, and there may be imposed in addition thereto a fine of not more than five hundred d | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Young v. State
green
2 sentences2017See Holt v. State, 2011 Ark. 391 , 384 S.W.3d 498 ; Young v. State, 371 Ark. 393 , 266 S.W.3d 744 (2007). 2017See Holt v. State, 2011 Ark. 391 , 384 S.W.3d 498 ; Young v. State, 371 Ark. 393 , 266 S.W.3d 744 (2007). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Bird v. Pan Western Corp.
green
2 sentences1999The applicability of the statute to subcontractors was established beyond question in Bird v. Pan Western Corp., 261 Ark. 56 , 62 , 546 S.W.2d 417 (1989), in which the Supreme Court offered the following reading of the materially indistinguishable predecessor statute: The cases cited by appellant cannot be read to support the position that subcontracting for construction of a portion of a building or of an integral part thereof is not included in the general term "construction" as used in the act. 1999The applicability of the statute to subcontractors was established beyond question in Bird v. Pan Western Corp., 261 Ark. 56 , 62 , 546 S.W.2d 417 (1989), in which the Supreme Court offered the following reading of the materially indistinguishable predecessor statute: The cases cited by appellant cannot be read to support the position that subcontracting for construction of a portion of a building or of an integral part thereof is not included in the general term "construction" as used in the act. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences1996Appellant argues that under the test enunciated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), reckless driving contains the same elements as do aggravated assault and first-degree battery. 1996Appellant argues that under the test enunciated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), reckless driving contains the same elements as do aggravated assault and first-degree battery. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Examining Bd. of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors v. Flores De Otero
green
2 sentences1989The United States Supreme Court held in Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976), that Puerto Rico could not condition the grant of an engineer's license on a requirement of U.S. citizenship. 1989The Court there stated: It is with respect to this kind of discrimination that the States have had the greatest difficulty in persuading this Court that their interests are substantial and constitutionally permissible, and that the discrimination is necessary for the safeguarding of those interests. 426 U.S. at 603 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.