position claim in Arkansas

2019The State cites United States v. Berrio-Londono, 946 F.2d 158 (1st Cir. 1991) for the position that inquiry into the witness’s prior criminal history is a collateral matter.

2012This view places Arkansas among an enlightened “emerging consensus [of states adhering] to the position that defense counsel is limited to the formal methods of discovery enumerated by the jurisdiction’s rules of civil procedure, absent the patient’s express consent to counsel’s ex parte contact with her treating physician.” Harlan, 141 F.R.D. at 111 (quoting Crist, 389 S.E.2d at 45 ).

2012This view places Arkansas among an enlightened “emerging consensus [of states adhering] to the position that defense counsel is limited to the formal methods of discovery enumerated by the jurisdiction’s rules of civil procedure, absent the patient’s express consent to counsel’s ex parte contact with her treating physician.” Harlan, 141 F.R.D. at 111 (quoting Crist, 389 S.E.2d at 45 ).

2012This view, according to the federal district court, “strikes an appropriate balance between the parties’ ability to obtain all relevant information and the patient’s right to have irrelevant medical information remain confidential.” Id.

1986App. 165 , 649 S.W.2d 407 (1983), and announced the following rule: [A]ppellant is in a position to challenge any error of the trial court in refusing to strike a juror for cause if the record shows that juror he objected to was forced upon him because he had exhausted his peremptory challenges.

1984Brandon v. Worthen Bank & Trust Company, N.A., 6 Ark.

1976Hence we declared in Dawson v. Mays, 159 Ark. 331 , 252 S.W. 33 , 30 A.L.R. 1463 (1923), that “an allowance in lieu of dower must be made in the divorce proceeding, and cannot be made in a subsequent proceeding.” The appellant argues two grounds for distinguishing this case from our earlier decisions.

1976Hence we declared in Dawson v. Mays, 159 Ark. 331 , 252 S.W. 33 , 30 A.L.R. 1463 (1923), that “an allowance in lieu of dower must be made in the divorce proceeding, and cannot be made in a subsequent proceeding.” The appellant argues two grounds for distinguishing this case from our earlier decisions.

1975Consequently, appellant is not in a position to claim error on the part of the trial court, Mo-Pac R.R. v. McDaniel, 252 Ark. 586 , 483 S.W. 2d 569 (1972).

1975Consequently, appellant is not in a position to claim error on the part of the trial court, Mo-Pac R.R. v. McDaniel, 252 Ark. 586 , 483 S.W. 2d 569 (1972).

1972In Ballew v. State, 246 Ark. 1191 , 441 S.W. 2d 453 (1969), we pointed out that the granting of a severance is within the discretion of the trial court and in Ballew v. State, 249 Ark. 480 , 459 S.W. 2d 577 (1970), that one who failed to ask for a cautionary instruction was not in a position to claim error.

1972In Ballew v. State, 246 Ark. 1191 , 441 S.W. 2d 453 (1969), we pointed out that the granting of a severance is within the discretion of the trial court and in Ballew v. State, 249 Ark. 480 , 459 S.W. 2d 577 (1970), that one who failed to ask for a cautionary instruction was not in a position to claim error.

1972In Ballew v. State, 246 Ark. 1191 , 441 S.W. 2d 453 (1969), we pointed out that the granting of a severance is within the discretion of the trial court and in Ballew v. State, 249 Ark. 480 , 459 S.W. 2d 577 (1970), that one who failed to ask for a cautionary instruction was not in a position to claim error.

1972In Ballew v. State, 246 Ark. 1191 , 441 S.W. 2d 453 (1969), we pointed out that the granting of a severance is within the discretion of the trial court and in Ballew v. State, 249 Ark. 480 , 459 S.W. 2d 577 (1970), that one who failed to ask for a cautionary instruction was not in a position to claim error.

1890Compton v. The Bunker Hill Bank, 96 Ill., 301 , is a case in which a wife sought to cancel a conveyance executed by her to the defendant in consideration of its promise not to prosecute her husband for embezzlement; the court reviewed the authorities and concluded that the bill should be dismissed, saying, “But though the deed may be void for such reason, equity does not relieve the party who executed it upon or for such illegal and immoral consideration and purpose.” We might add many citations to the same effect: Allison v. Hess, 28 Iowa, 389 ; Inhabitants etc. v. Eaton, 11 Mass., 377 ; Smit

1887Williams v. Bankhead, 19 Wall., 570 ; Wilson v. Nance, 11 Humph., 189 ; Little v. Birdwell, 27 Tex., 692 ; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall., 365 ; Reinig v. Hecht, 58 Wis., 212 ; Pratt v. Dow, 56 Me., 81; Wandling v. Straw, 25 W.