9 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1910–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilder v. Garnergreen2 sentences1980See Davis, Admr. v. Herrington, 53 Ark. 5 , 13 S.W. 215 . ( 235 Ark. 400 at 403 ) Although the action in Wilder was brought more than three years after the divorce decree, this Court refused to bar the entire claim, but rather allowed recovery for support during the three years prior to the filing of the complaint for the reason that: . . .as long as the children are minors, the obligation is a continuing one on the father to support the children, and during such period of minority limitations could not bar all amounts. ( 235 Ark. 400 at 402 ) We hold, therefore, that the Trial Court erred in 1980See Davis, Admr. v. Herrington, 53 Ark. 5 , 13 S.W. 215 . ( 235 Ark. 400 at 403 ) Although the action in Wilder was brought more than three years after the divorce decree, this Court refused to bar the entire claim, but rather allowed recovery for support during the three years prior to the filing of the complaint for the reason that: . . .as long as the children are minors, the obligation is a continuing one on the father to support the children, and during such period of minority limitations could not bar all amounts. ( 235 Ark. 400 at 402 ) We hold, therefore, that the Trial Court erred in | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Herringtongreen2 sentences1980See Davis, Admr. v. Herrington, 53 Ark. 5 , 13 S.W. 215 . ( 235 Ark. 400 at 403 ) Although the action in Wilder was brought more than three years after the divorce decree, this Court refused to bar the entire claim, but rather allowed recovery for support during the three years prior to the filing of the complaint for the reason that: . . .as long as the children are minors, the obligation is a continuing one on the father to support the children, and during such period of minority limitations could not bar all amounts. ( 235 Ark. 400 at 402 ) We hold, therefore, that the Trial Court erred in 1980See Davis, Admr. v. Herrington, 53 Ark. 5 , 13 S.W. 215 . ( 235 Ark. 400 at 403 ) Although the action in Wilder was brought more than three years after the divorce decree, this Court refused to bar the entire claim, but rather allowed recovery for support during the three years prior to the filing of the complaint for the reason that: . . .as long as the children are minors, the obligation is a continuing one on the father to support the children, and during such period of minority limitations could not bar all amounts. ( 235 Ark. 400 at 402 ) We hold, therefore, that the Trial Court erred in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Byrd v. State
green
2 sentences2002This court held that second-degree murder was not a lesser-included offense of the type of first-degree murder charged in that case, because “the element of causing a death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life is not an element of the charge for first-degree murder of a person aged fourteen years or younger.” Id. at 426 , 992 S.W.2d at 766 . 2002This court held that second-degree murder was not a lesser-included offense of the type of first-degree murder charged in that case, because “the element of causing a death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life is not an element of the charge for first-degree murder of a person aged fourteen years or younger.” Id. at 426 , 992 S.W.2d at 766 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences1968You are instructed that circumstantial evidence is legal evidence, but when tbe State relies wholly or in part upon circumstantial evidence for conviction, it must be of such a nature that it is consistent with the guilt of the Defendants when considered along with all other evidence in the case and is inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis.” The trial court having given a correct instruction on circumstantial evidence, committed no error in refusing Appellant’s instruction, Smith v. State, 227 Ark. 332 , 299 S.W. 2d 52 (1957). 1968You are instructed that circumstantial evidence is legal evidence, but when tbe State relies wholly or in part upon circumstantial evidence for conviction, it must be of such a nature that it is consistent with the guilt of the Defendants when considered along with all other evidence in the case and is inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis.” The trial court having given a correct instruction on circumstantial evidence, committed no error in refusing Appellant’s instruction, Smith v. State, 227 Ark. 332 , 299 S.W. 2d 52 (1957). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Carpenter v. Hammer
green
2 sentences1948Carpenter v. Hammer, 75 Ark. 347 , 87 S. W. 646 ; DeQueen & Eastern Ry. 1948Carpenter v. Hammer, 75 Ark. 347 , 87 S. W. 646 ; DeQueen & Eastern Ry. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Mason v. Bowen
green
1 sentence1924This case, as we said in Mason v. Bowen, supra, was a well considered case, and, by approving and following it, we are committed to the doctrine that the statements and declarations of a testator, whether made before or after the execution of the will, are not competent as direct or substantive evidence of undue influence, and counsel insist that the purpose and effect of the refused instruction was to apply that doctrine to the facts of this case. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Moore v. State
neutral
1 sentence1922No error was committed in refusing this instruction, as it was held in the case of Moore v. State, 154 Ark. 13 , that this was a negative averment, particularly within the appellant’s knbwledge, and should have been disproved by the appellant himself. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Baker v. State
green
1 sentence1917The motion for continuance was properly denied by the court: Baker v. State, 58 Ark. 513 . .The trial court refused instruction No. 1, asked by appellant, which is as follows: /‘The court instructs the jury that the burden is on the State to prove the defendant guilty as charged in the' indictment, and if the evidence fails to satisfy your minds beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant, then it is your duty to give him the benefit of such doubt and acquit him. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Newhouse Mill & Lumber Co. v. Keller
neutral
1 sentence1917An instruction in all respects similar to the refused instruction was approved by the court in Newhouse Mill & Lumber Co. v. Keller, 103 Ark. 538 . | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Railway Co. v. Roberts
neutral
1 sentence1910A similar question was presented and decided in Railway Company v. Roberts, 56 Ark. 387 . | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.