10 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
First Pyramid Life Insurance Co. of America v. Stoltzgreen2 sentences2017See id. (holding that mere allegations of fraud are not enough to create an issue of material fact that would avoid summary judgment on a limitations defense). 2017See id. (holding that mere allegations of fraud are not enough to create an issue of material fact that would avoid summary judgment on a limitations defense). | 1 | 1 |
BNL Equity Corp. v. Pearsongreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., BNL Equity Corp. v. Pearson, 340 Ark. 351, 363 , 10 S.W.3d 838, 845 (2000) (holding that “any analysis of the limitations defense at the class-certification stage is a merits determination, and, therefore, inappropriate”). 2006See, e.g., BNL Equity Corp. v. Pearson, 340 Ark. 351, 363 , 10 S.W.3d 838, 845 (2000) (holding that “any analysis of the limitations defense at the class-certification stage is a merits determination, and, therefore, inappropriate”). | 1 | 1 |
Parish v. Pittsred2 sentences2002But as we have often said: “The proper limitations on the doctrine of stare decisis have ever been recognized by this court. ‘Precedent, it is said, should not implicitly govern, but discretely guide . . . .’” Parish v. Pitts, 244 Ark. 1239, 1252 , 429 S.W.2d 45, 52 (1968) (quoting Roane v. Hinton, 6 Ark. 525 , 527 (1846)). 2002But as we have often said: “The proper limitations on the doctrine of stare decisis have ever been recognized by this court. ‘Precedent, it is said, should not implicitly govern, but discretely guide . . . .’” Parish v. Pitts, 244 Ark. 1239, 1252 , 429 S.W.2d 45, 52 (1968) (quoting Roane v. Hinton, 6 Ark. 525 , 527 (1846)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rebecca Nichols v. James Swindoll and Chuck Gibson
green
2 sentences2022Therefore, to rebut a limitations defense, a plaintiff must describe specific fraudulent acts committed for the purpose of concealing a cause of action.” Nichols v. Swindoll, 2022 Ark. 2022Therefore, to rebut a limitations defense, a plaintiff must describe specific fraudulent acts committed for the purpose of concealing a cause of action.” Nichols v. Swindoll, 2022 Ark. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Dunnington v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2023The supreme court went on to say, however, that the circuit court’s rejection of the Dunningtons’ limitations defense “should be affirmed on an additional ground.” That is, that Taylor’s payment of fire insurance premiums . . . under the terms of the deed of trust in question tolled the statute of limitations.” Id. 2023Specifically, the court noted that provisions in the deed of trust required the Dunningtons to pay the cost of insurance on the property, and provided that in the event they failed to do so, “Taylor might himself keep the property insured.” Id. at 773 , 131 S.W.2s 18 at 628. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Bates v. Bates
green
2 sentences1994The limitations of this exception were recently affirmed in Bates v. Bates, 303 Ark. 89 , 793 S.W.2d 788 (1990). 1994The limitations of this exception were recently affirmed in Bates v. Bates, 303 Ark. 89 , 793 S.W.2d 788 (1990). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Heflin v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co.
green
2 sentences1994Heflin, 244 Ark. 195 , 424 S.W.2d 365 . 1994Heflin, 244 Ark. 195 , 424 S.W.2d 365 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Pryor v. Pryor
neutral
2 sentences1934Each so nearly supports the next that, before one is aware, the bounds of reason are passed. ’ ’ In numerous cases following we have adhered to the limitations of the rule as suggested in Kurtz v. Kurtz, supra. In Meffert v. Meffert, 118 Ark. 582 , 177 S. W. 1 , the following language is used: “So it may be said that the remedy of absolute divorce contemplated by this clause of our statute is for evils which are unavoidable and unendurable, and which cannot be relieved by any exertions of the party seeking the aid of the courts. ’ ’ In Pryor v. Pryor, 151 Ark. 150 , 235 S. W. 419 , one of the 1934Each so nearly supports the next that, before one is aware, the bounds of reason are passed. ’ ’ In numerous cases following we have adhered to the limitations of the rule as suggested in Kurtz v. Kurtz, supra. In Meffert v. Meffert, 118 Ark. 582 , 177 S. W. 1 , the following language is used: “So it may be said that the remedy of absolute divorce contemplated by this clause of our statute is for evils which are unavoidable and unendurable, and which cannot be relieved by any exertions of the party seeking the aid of the courts. ’ ’ In Pryor v. Pryor, 151 Ark. 150 , 235 S. W. 419 , one of the | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Kurtz v. Kurtz
green
1 sentence1934Each so nearly supports the next that, before one is aware, the bounds of reason are passed. ’ ’ In numerous cases following we have adhered to the limitations of the rule as suggested in Kurtz v. Kurtz, supra. In Meffert v. Meffert, 118 Ark. 582 , 177 S. W. 1 , the following language is used: “So it may be said that the remedy of absolute divorce contemplated by this clause of our statute is for evils which are unavoidable and unendurable, and which cannot be relieved by any exertions of the party seeking the aid of the courts. ’ ’ In Pryor v. Pryor, 151 Ark. 150 , 235 S. W. 419 , one of the | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Meffert v. Meffert
neutral
2 sentences1934Each so nearly supports the next that, before one is aware, the bounds of reason are passed. ’ ’ In numerous cases following we have adhered to the limitations of the rule as suggested in Kurtz v. Kurtz, supra. In Meffert v. Meffert, 118 Ark. 582 , 177 S. W. 1 , the following language is used: “So it may be said that the remedy of absolute divorce contemplated by this clause of our statute is for evils which are unavoidable and unendurable, and which cannot be relieved by any exertions of the party seeking the aid of the courts. ’ ’ In Pryor v. Pryor, 151 Ark. 150 , 235 S. W. 419 , one of the 1934Each so nearly supports the next that, before one is aware, the bounds of reason are passed. ’ ’ In numerous cases following we have adhered to the limitations of the rule as suggested in Kurtz v. Kurtz, supra. In Meffert v. Meffert, 118 Ark. 582 , 177 S. W. 1 , the following language is used: “So it may be said that the remedy of absolute divorce contemplated by this clause of our statute is for evils which are unavoidable and unendurable, and which cannot be relieved by any exertions of the party seeking the aid of the courts. ’ ’ In Pryor v. Pryor, 151 Ark. 150 , 235 S. W. 419 , one of the | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Mueller v. Nugent
green
1 sentence1923Mr. Justice Day, for the court, said: “Whatever may be the limitations of the doctrine declared by this court, speaking by the late Chief Justice Fuller in Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U. S. 1, 34 , 46 L. ed. 405, 411, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269, where it is said: ‘It is as true of the present law (1898) (30 Stat. at L. 544, chap. 541, U. S. Comp. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.