Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCutchen v. City of Fort Smithgreen2 sentences2017A controversy is justiciable when “a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest ,in contesting it.” McCutchen v. City of Fort Smith, 2012 Ark. 452, at 14 , 425 S.W.3d 671, 681-82 (citing MacSteel Div. of Quanex v. Ark. 2017A controversy is justiciable when “a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest ,in contesting it.” McCutchen v. City of Fort Smith, 2012 Ark. 452, at 14 , 425 S.W.3d 671, 681-82 (citing MacSteel Div. of Quanex v. Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Robertson v. Norrisgreen2 sentences2017See Robertson v. Norris, 360 Ark. 591 , 203 S.W.3d 82 (2005) (Robertson filed a petition for writ of mandamus claiming the ADC did not properly classify him for parole-eligibility purposes; however, whatever the merits of his arguments, the court could not reach them because the record was insufficient, as it was lacking the original judgment and commitment order sentencing Robertson.). 2017See Robertson v. Norris, 360 Ark. 591 , 203 S.W.3d 82 (2005) (Robertson filed a petition for writ of mandamus claiming the ADC did not properly classify him for parole-eligibility purposes; however, whatever the merits of his arguments, the court could not reach them because the record was insufficient, as it was lacking the original judgment and commitment order sentencing Robertson.). | 1 | 1 |
Morrissey v. Brewergreen1 sentence1999Morrissey stated merely that: "[d]ue process would seem to require that some minimal inquiry be conducted at or reasonably near the place of the alleged parole violation or arrest and as promptly as convenient after arrest while information is fresh and sources are available." 408 U.S. at 485 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Gagnon v. Scarpellired1 sentence1999The Gagnon court merely adopted the Morrissey rule for probationers. 411 U.S. at 782 ("we hold that a probationer, like a parolee, is entitled to a preliminary and a final revocation hearing, under the conditions specified in Morrissey v. Brewer, supra "). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Melvin Jefferson v. State of Arkansas
neutral
2 sentences2022Jefferson v. State, 2019 Ark. 408 , 591 S.W.3d 310 . 2022Jefferson v. State, 2019 Ark. 408 , 591 S.W.3d 310 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Tyrell Benson v. State of Arkansas
neutral
1 sentence2021Benson v. State, 2020 Ark. 161 . 3 suspended sentence imposed as a result of Marek’s parole violation such that Marek would ultimately receive a harsher sentence in place of the suspended sentence.2 II. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Warren v. Felts
neutral
1 sentence2017Although Warren contends that his parole was denied, that his various constitutional rights were violated, and that he is entitled to a hearing, Warren’s record is devoid of any evidence of his underlying convictions 1 or any evidence indicating that he 1 In addition to the above-referenced convictions and sentences, Warren contends that he has a drug conviction for which he is also serving time. 2 Cite as 2017 Ark. 237 was subject to a parole hearing and, if so, when and the results thereof. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hill v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
green
1 sentence2015App. 108 , 389 S.W.3d 72 , the mother’s parental rights were terminated when she was incarcerated on a parole violation. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Tribble v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
neutral
1 sentence2015Scales were found in the car, and 2 The “other factors” ground is found in Arkansas Code Annotated § 9-27- 341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a), and it recites that this ground means that “other factors or issues arose subsequent to the filing of the original petition for dependency-neglect that demonstrate that placement of the juvenile in the custody of the parent is contrary to the juvenile’s health, safety, or welfare, and that, despite the offer of appropriate family services, the parent has manifested the incapacity or indifference to remedy the subsequent issues or factors or rehabilitate the parent’s | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Thomas v. State
neutral
1 sentence2014A search incident to his arrest uncovered an empty cigarette pack in 2 Cite as 2014 Ark. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Anthony Campisi, Peter S. Campisi, Peter A. Campisi, Carman Charles Campisi. Appeal of Peter A. Campisi
green
2 sentences2004Courts finding an accused’s demonstration of prejudice to be lacking are generally confronted with an argument that the defendant has lost things such as: the opportunity to be treated in a juvenile facility, see Todisco, supra; the right to appeal, see Perdue v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 909 (Ky. 2002); the right to be sentenced to federal prison, rather than to state prison, see Brooks v. United States, supra; or the right to a parole hearing, see United States v. Campisi, supra. However, in Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25 (1973), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant may be prej 2004Courts finding an accused's demonstration of prejudice to be lacking are generally confronted with an argument that the defendant has lost things such as: the opportunity to be treated in a juvenile facility, see Todisco, supra ; the right to appeal, see Perdue v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 909 (Ky.2002); the right to be sentenced to federal prison, rather than to state prison, see Brooks v. United States, supra; or the right to a parole hearing, see United States v. Campisi, supra . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Pollard v. United States
green
2 sentences2004At that time, the federal district court sentenced him “in the first instance . . . .” Pollard, 352 U.S. at 357 . 2004At that time, the federal district court sentenced him "in the first instance...." Pollard, 352 U.S. at 357 , 77 S.Ct. 481 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Perdue v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2004Courts finding an accused’s demonstration of prejudice to be lacking are generally confronted with an argument that the defendant has lost things such as: the opportunity to be treated in a juvenile facility, see Todisco, supra; the right to appeal, see Perdue v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 909 (Ky. 2002); the right to be sentenced to federal prison, rather than to state prison, see Brooks v. United States, supra; or the right to a parole hearing, see United States v. Campisi, supra. However, in Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25 (1973), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant may be prej 2004Courts finding an accused's demonstration of prejudice to be lacking are generally confronted with an argument that the defendant has lost things such as: the opportunity to be treated in a juvenile facility, see Todisco, supra ; the right to appeal, see Perdue v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 909 (Ky.2002); the right to be sentenced to federal prison, rather than to state prison, see Brooks v. United States, supra; or the right to a parole hearing, see United States v. Campisi, supra . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Marion
green
1 sentence2004The Court wrote the following: Inordinate delay, wholly aside from possible prejudice to a defense on the merits, may “seriously interfere with the defendant’s liberty, whether he is free on bail or not, and . . . may disrupt his employment, drain his financial resources, curtail his associations, subject him to public obloquy, and create anxiety in him, his family, and his friends.” United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Moore v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2004Courts finding an accused’s demonstration of prejudice to be lacking are generally confronted with an argument that the defendant has lost things such as: the opportunity to be treated in a juvenile facility, see Todisco, supra; the right to appeal, see Perdue v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 909 (Ky. 2002); the right to be sentenced to federal prison, rather than to state prison, see Brooks v. United States, supra; or the right to a parole hearing, see United States v. Campisi, supra. However, in Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25 (1973), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant may be prej 2004However, in Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25 , 94 S.Ct. 188 , 38 L.Ed.2d 183 (1973), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant may be prejudiced in numerous ways by a delay in bringing him to trial. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.