10 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Durham v. Stategreen2 sentences1996As Durham also pointed out, the reasoning behind this rule of specificity is to adequately apprise the trial court, as well as the appellate court, of the grounds for the motion so that both courts make informed rulings. 320 Ark. at 689 , 899 S.W.2d at 473 (1995). 1996As Durham also pointed out, the reasoning behind this rule of specificity is to adequately apprise the trial court, as well as the appellate court, of the grounds for the motion so that both courts make informed rulings. 320 Ark. at 689 , 899 S.W.2d at 473 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holloway v. State
green
2 sentences2011Id. 2006Id. | 2 | 2006–2011 |
Pinell v. State
green
2 sentences2011We have said that the reasoning behind this rule is “that when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the circuit court can either grant the motion, or, if justice requires, allow the State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof.” Pinell, 364 Ark. at 357 , 219 S.W.3d at 171 . 2008We have said that the reasoning behind this rule is “that when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the circuit court can either grant the motion, or, if justice requires, allow the State to reopen its case and supply the missing pro of.” Pinell, 364 Ark. at 357 , 219 S.W.3d at 171 . | 2 | 2008–2011 |
Abdin v. Abdin
green
1 sentence2017Abdin v. Abdin, 94 Ark. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Morgan
green
1 sentence2011We have said that the reasoning behind this rule is “that when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the circuit court can either grant the motion, or, if justice requires, allow the State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof.” Pinell, 364 Ark. at 357 , 219 S.W.3d at 171 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Spear & Boyce
neutral
2 sentences1997The reasoning behind this rule is stated as follows: The question of the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a given case constitutes a question of law for the decision of the court, but it cannot become a precedent for application in another case because of the varying state of facts in different cases, and therefore the decision of that question, even though it be one of law, is not important in the “uniform administration of the criminal law.” Spear and Boyce, 123 Ark. 449, 450 , 185 S.W. 788, 789 . 1997The reasoning behind this rule is stated as follows: The question of the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a given case constitutes a question of law for the decision of the court, but it cannot become a precedent for application in another case because of the varying state of facts in different cases, and therefore the decision of that question, even though it be one of law, is not important in the “uniform administration of the criminal law.” Spear and Boyce, 123 Ark. 449, 450 , 185 S.W. 788, 789 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Cameron v. State
green
1 sentence1993Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Dixon
green
1 sentence1992The reasoning behind this rule is stated as follows: The question of the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a given case constitutes a question of law for the decision of the court, but it cannot become a precedent for application in another case because of the varying state of facts in different cases, and therefore the decision of that question, even though it be one of law, is not important in the “uniform administration of the criminal law.” Dixon at 158 , 189 S.W.2d at 789 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. United States
green
1 sentence1988If the insurance company desires to cancel, it should so state in clear terms and proceed accordingly. 395 F.2d at 181 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.