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 2 courts 2003–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jegley v. Picadogreen2 sentences2015Id. ■■ In Smith, our supreme court found .that the. statute was aimed at protecting minors from sexual encounters with adults in positions of power or authority over the minors, and including employees of the victim’s school and school district was rationally related to that goal because [s]chool district employees are authority figures to minor children. 2006Landers, 355 Ark. at 176 , 132 S.W.2d at 749-50 (quoting Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, 634 , 80 S.W.3d 332, 351 (2002) (emphasis in original)). | 2 | 5 |
Wayne Woodard v. Louis L. Wainwright, Eddie Bell v. Louis L. Wainwright, Secretary of Department of Offender Rehabilitationgreen1 sentence2012Id. “[Treatment as a juvenile is not an inherent right but one granted by the state legislature, therefore the legislature may restrict or qualify that right as it sees fit, as long as no arbitrary or discriminatory classification is involved.” Woodard v. Wainwright, 556 F.2d 781, 785 (5th Cir.1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Otis v. State
green
2 sentences2023Id. 2012Id. “[Treatment as a juvenile is not an inherent right but one granted by the state legislature, therefore the legislature may restrict or qualify that right as it sees fit, as long as no arbitrary or discriminatory classification is involved.” Woodard v. Wainwright, 556 F.2d 781, 785 (5th Cir.1977). | 2 | 2012–2023 |
Akers v. State
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
McLane Southern, Inc. v. Davis
green
2 sentences2016McLane S., Inc. v. Davis, 366 Ark. 164 , 233 S.W.3d 674 (2006). 2016McLane S., Inc. v. Davis, 366 Ark. 164 , 233 S.W.3d 674 (2006). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Landers v. Jameson
green
1 sentence2006Landers, 355 Ark. at 176 , 132 S.W.2d at 749-50 (quoting Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, 634 , 80 S.W.3d 332, 351 (2002) (emphasis in original)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.