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 2004–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Timothy S. Raszkiewiczgreen2 sentences2022Even though this court has yet to define a “distinctive group,” several federal circuits have adopted the following three- factor test to determine whether a group is “distinctive”: “(1) the existence of qualities that define a group, (2) similarity of attitudes, beliefs, or experiences, and (3) a community of interest among group members.” E.g., United States v. Raszkiewicz, 169 F.3d 459, 463 (7th 11 Cir. 1999). 2022Even though this court has yet to define a “distinctive group,” several federal circuits have adopted the following three- factor test to determine whether a group is “distinctive”: “(1) the existence of qualities that define a group, (2) similarity of attitudes, beliefs, or experiences, and (3) a community of interest among group members.” E.g., United States v. Raszkiewicz, 169 F.3d 459, 463 (7th 11 Cir. 1999). | 2 | 2 |
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Goregreen2 sentences2004See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). 2004See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 , 116 S.Ct. 1589 , 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robbins v. State
green
2 sentences2021Motion to Recall Mandate Our standard to recall a mandate is set forth in Nooner v. State, 2014 Ark. 296 , 438 S.W.3d 233 , and that standard indicates that the three-factor test set out in Robbins v. State, 353 Ark. 556 , 114 S.W.3d 217 (2003), remains relevant. 2021Motion to Recall Mandate Our standard to recall a mandate is set forth in Nooner v. State, 2014 Ark. 296 , 438 S.W.3d 233 , and that standard indicates that the three-factor test set out in Robbins v. State, 353 Ark. 556 , 114 S.W.3d 217 (2003), remains relevant. | 3 | 2010–2021 |
Nooner v. State
green
2 sentences2021Motion to Recall Mandate Our standard to recall a mandate is set forth in Nooner v. State, 2014 Ark. 296 , 438 S.W.3d 233 , and that standard indicates that the three-factor test set out in Robbins v. State, 353 Ark. 556 , 114 S.W.3d 217 (2003), remains relevant. 2021Motion to Recall Mandate Our standard to recall a mandate is set forth in Nooner v. State, 2014 Ark. 296 , 438 S.W.3d 233 , and that standard indicates that the three-factor test set out in Robbins v. State, 353 Ark. 556 , 114 S.W.3d 217 (2003), remains relevant. | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Weigel v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2024The circuit court correctly applied the relevant three-factor test adopted in Weigel v. Farmers Insurance Co., 356 Ark. 617 , 158 S.W.3d 147 (2004). 2024The circuit court correctly applied the relevant three-factor test adopted in Weigel v. Farmers Insurance Co., 356 Ark. 617 , 158 S.W.3d 147 (2004). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Pledger v. Halvorson
green
2 sentences2018In applying the three-factor test set forth above, our supreme court has held that the third factor-the intent of the party making the annexation-is "a consideration of primary importance." Id. at 306 , 921 S.W.2d at 578 . 2018In applying the three-factor test set forth above, our supreme court has held that the third factor-the intent of the party making the annexation-is "a consideration of primary importance." Id. at 306 , 921 S.W.2d at 578 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Advocat, Inc. v. Heide
green
2 sentences2013Id. (citing 2 David Newbern & John Watkins, Ark. 2013Id. (citing 2 David Newbern & John Watkins, Ark. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences2010The Eighth Circuit said: “[Tjhis appears to be a case that could satisfy the three factor test in Lee.” The reference is to Lee v. State, 367 Ark. 84 , 238 S.W.3d 52 (2006), where this court recalled the mandate and reopened the Rule 37 case because Rule |1fl37 counsel was impaired by alcohol at the Rule 37 hearing and, thus, incompetent. 2010The Eighth Circuit said: “[Tjhis appears to be a case that could satisfy the three factor test in Lee.” The reference is to Lee v. State, 367 Ark. 84 , 238 S.W.3d 52 (2006), where this court recalled the mandate and reopened the Rule 37 case because Rule |1fl37 counsel was impaired by alcohol at the Rule 37 hearing and, thus, incompetent. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Wooten v. Norris
green
1 sentence2010The three factors which were set forth in Lee by this court but originally described in Robbins v. State, 353 Ark. 556 , 114 S.W.3d 217 (2003), were described by the Eighth Circuit as follows: The circumstances the court referred to included the facts that [1] a federal court had dismissed a related habeas case based on a failure to exhaust state remedies, [2] the Arkansas Supreme Court had recently decided a case that was “on all fours legally with the issue presented” in Robbins, [3] and the case was a capital case that the Arkansas Supreme Court viewed as qualitatively different and worthy | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.