10 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lane v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Lane v. State, 2015 Ark. 2017See Lane v. State, 2015 Ark. | 1 | 2 |
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Bassgreen2 sentences2021See Bass, 2015 Ark. 178, at 14 , 461 S.W.3d at 326 . 2021See Bass, 2015 Ark. 178, at 14 , 461 S.W.3d at 326 . | 1 | 1 |
Rudd v. Stategreen2 sentences2009As we stated in Rudd v. State, 308 Ark. 401, 405 , 825 S.W.2d 565, 567 (1992): [A] motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs case has as its purpose a procedure for determining whether the plaintiff has met the burden of establishing a prima facie case, with that question to be resolved by the court as a matter of law. 2009As we stated in Rudd v. State, 308 Ark. 401, 405 , 825 S.W.2d 565, 567 (1992): [A] motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs case has as its purpose a procedure for determining whether the plaintiff has met the burden of establishing a prima facie case, with that question to be resolved by the court as a matter of law. | 1 | 1 |
Cummings v. Stategreen2 sentences2009With respect to the timeliness requirement, this court has said in Cummings v. State, 315 Ark. 541, 546 , 869 S.W.2d 17, 20 (1994): The reason for the rule is obvious. 2009With respect to the timeliness requirement, this court has said in Cummings v. State, 315 Ark. 541, 546 , 869 S.W.2d 17, 20 (1994): The reason for the rule is obvious. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc.green1 sentence2008See Taylor v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 89 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bayercropsciences Lp v. Glen Hooks Michael Dougan Pratt Remmell Reed Storey Tim Fisher Victor Gray Bland Currie Gladys Whitney Frances Wilson Shackleford Adam Fisher Guy Fisher Paden Ball Gale Stewart Coy's Honey Farm, Inc. Arkansas State Plant Board, a Division of the Arkansas Department of Agriculture Arkansas State Plant Board Members in Their Offcial Capacites: Walter \Bruce\" Alford Kyle Baltz Tommy Anderson Reynold Meyer Darrell Hess Marty Eaton Barry Walls Terry Fuller Mark Hopper Brad Koen Sam Stuckey Terry Stephenson Dr. Ken Korth Dr. Nathan Slaton Matthew Marsh Jason Parks Scott Milburn Dennie Stokes Mark Morgan Omp Farms
neutral
2 sentences2024Bayer Cropscience, LP v. Hooks, 2022 Ark. 29 , 638 S.W.3d 274 . 2024Bayer Cropscience, LP v. Hooks, 2022 Ark. 29 , 638 S.W.3d 274 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Faishaun Virgies v. State of Arkansas
neutral
1 sentence2023Virgies v. State, 2019 Ark. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Jarrett v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Haskins v. State
neutral
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Stanley v. State
green
1 sentence1994Affirmed. 1 As to the timeliness of the challenge see Pacee v. State, 306 Ark. 563 , 816 S.W.2d 856 (1991); Stanley v. State. 313 MD. 50, 542 A.2d 1267 (1988). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Pacee v. State
green
2 sentences1994Affirmed. 1 As to the timeliness of the challenge see Pacee v. State, 306 Ark. 563 , 816 S.W.2d 856 (1991); Stanley v. State. 313 MD. 50, 542 A.2d 1267 (1988). 1994Affirmed. 1 As to the timeliness of the challenge see Pacee v. State, 306 Ark. 563 , 816 S.W.2d 856 (1991); Stanley v. State. 313 MD. 50, 542 A.2d 1267 (1988). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.