10 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
McArthur v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See McArthur v. State, 2019 Ark. 220 , 577 S.W.3d 385 . 2025See McArthur v. State, 2019 Ark. 220 , 577 S.W.3d 385 . | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Scott v. State, 2019 Ark. 94 , 571 S.W.3d 451 ; see Williams v. State, 2017 Ark. 313 , 530 S.W.3d 844 (Petitioner failed to demonstrate a Brady violation because he did not establish that some fact was hidden from the defense.). 2019Scott v. State, 2019 Ark. 94 , 571 S.W.3d 451 ; see Williams v. State, 2017 Ark. 313 , 530 S.W.3d 844 (Petitioner failed to demonstrate a Brady violation because he did not establish that some fact was hidden from the defense.). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Davis v. State, 2019 Ark. 172 , 574 S.W.3d 666 . 2019See, e.g., Davis v. State, 2019 Ark. 172 , 574 S.W.3d 666 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scott v. State
green
2 sentences2025Id. 2025Id. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Scott v. State
green
2 sentences2019Scott v. State, 2014 Ark. 199 (per curiam). 2017Scott v. State, 2014 Ark. 199 , 2014 WL 1776009 (per curiam). | 2 | 2017–2019 |
Fields v. Hobbs
green
1 sentence2022Fields, supra. Accordingly, the circuit court did not clearly err when it rejected Scott’s claim for habeas relief. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Anders v. California
green
1 sentence2020Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k)(1) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Scott’s counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on the ground that the appeal is without merit. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Scott v. State
green
2 sentences2019Scott v. State, 2019 Ark. 94 , 571 S.W.3d 451 ; see Williams v. State, 2017 Ark. 313 , 530 S.W.3d 844 (Petitioner failed to demonstrate a Brady violation because he did not establish that some fact was hidden from the defense.). 2019Scott v. State, 2019 Ark. 94 , 571 S.W.3d 451 ; see Williams v. State, 2017 Ark. 313 , 530 S.W.3d 844 (Petitioner failed to demonstrate a Brady violation because he did not establish that some fact was hidden from the defense.). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Conte v. State
green
1 sentence2015We held that, 22 Cite as 2015 Ark. 220 where the accused was prevented from using two alibi witnesses, one whose whereabouts were not known and the other who had died a year and a half after the crime, the State should have been required to provide a satisfactory reason for the delay. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Scott
green
1 sentence2006Scott, 437 U.S. at 82 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.