386 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2026 65 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Freeman v. State, 331 Ark. 130, 131 , 959 S.W.2d 400, 401 (1998) (citing Williams v. State, 329 Ark. 8, 16 , 946 S.W.2d 678, 682 (1997)). 2001Freeman v. State, 331 Ark. 130, 131 , 959 S.W.2d 400, 401 (1998) (citing Williams v. State, 329 Ark. 8, 16 , 946 S.W.2d 678, 682 (1997)). | 6 | 7 |
Freeman v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Freeman v. State, 331 Ark. 130, 131 , 959 S.W.2d 400, 401 (1998) (citing Williams v. State, 329 Ark. 8, 16 , 946 S.W.2d 678, 682 (1997)). 2001Freeman v. State, 331 Ark. 130, 131 , 959 S.W.2d 400, 401 (1998) (citing Williams v. State, 329 Ark. 8, 16 , 946 S.W.2d 678, 682 (1997)). | 5 | 5 |
Flowers v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Flowers v. State, 373 Ark. 127 , 282 S.W.3d 767 (2008). 2024See Flowers v. State, 373 Ark. 127 , 282 S.W.3d 767 (2008). | 3 | 5 |
| Jackson v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| Flowers v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
Coggin v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Coggin v. State, 356 Ark. 424, 431 , 156 S.W.3d 712, 716 (2004). 2014Coggin v. State, 356 Ark. 424, 431 , 156 S.W.3d 712, 716 (2004). | 2 | 9 |
| Saul v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
Durham v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Durham, v. State, 320 Ark. 689 , 899 S.W.2d 470 (1995). 2016Durham, v. State, 320 Ark. 689 , 899 S.W.2d 470 (1995). | 1 | 18 |
McClendon v. Stategreen2 sentences2024A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. 2 When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and considers only the evidence that supports the verdict.3 The court will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence to support it, meaning the evidence is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture. 4 Substantial evidence can be direct or circumstantial.5 Whether circ 2024A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. 2 When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and considers only the evidence that supports the verdict.3 The court will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence to support it, meaning the evidence is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture. 4 Substantial evidence can be direct or circumstantial.5 Whether circ | 1 | 4 |
| Williamson v. Stategreen | 1 | 4 |
| Jordan v. Stategreen | 1 | 3 |
| Passley v. Stategreen | 1 | 3 |
| Terry v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matthew Armstrong v. State of Arkansas
green
2 sentences2026Armstrong v. State, 2020 Ark. 309 , 607 S.W.3d 491 . 2026Armstrong v. State, 2020 Ark. 309 , 607 S.W.3d 491 . | 25 | 2021–2026 |
Whitt v. State
neutral
2 sentences2020We treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.2 Whitt v. State, 365 Ark. 580 , 232 S.W.3d 459 (2006). 2020We treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.2 Whitt v. State, 365 Ark. 580 , 232 S.W.3d 459 (2006). | 13 | 2006–2026 |
Kelley v. State
green
2 sentences2024We treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.2 When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict.3 We will affirm a judgment of conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it.4 Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other without resorting to speculation or conjecture.5 We defer to the jury’s determination o 2024He specifically argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient to establish that he failed to report a change of address as required of sex offenders. 3 We treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. 1 When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. 2 We will affirm a judgment of conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it.3 Substantial | 12 | 2008–2024 |
Hinton v. State
green
2 sentences2016This court treats a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.' Hinton v. State, 2015 Ark. 479 , 477 S.W.3d 517 . 2016This court treats a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.' Hinton v. State, 2015 Ark. 479 , 477 S.W.3d 517 . | 10 | 2016–2025 |
Atkinson v. State
green
2 sentences2005Atkinson v. State, 347 Ark. 336 , 64 S.W.3d 259 (2002); Smith v. State, 346 Ark. 48 , 55 S.W.3d 251 (2001) (citing Durham v. State, 320 Ark. 689 , 899 S.W.2d 470 (1995)). 2005Atkinson v. State, 347 Ark. 336 , 64 S.W.3d 259 (2002); Smith v. State, 346 Ark. 48 , 55 S.W.3d 251 (2001) (citing Durham v. State, 320 Ark. 689 , 899 S.W.2d 470 (1995)). | 10 | 2002–2005 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2005Atkinson v. State, 347 Ark. 336 , 64 S.W.3d 259 (2002); Smith v. State, 346 Ark. 48 , 55 S.W.3d 251 (2001) (citing Durham v. State, 320 Ark. 689 , 899 S.W.2d 470 (1995)). 2005Atkinson v. State, 347 Ark. 336 , 64 S.W.3d 259 (2002); Smith v. State, 346 Ark. 48 , 55 S.W.3d 251 (2001) (citing Durham v. State, 320 Ark. 689 , 899 S.W.2d 470 (1995)). | 9 | 2002–2005 |
Branscum v. State
green
2 sentences2008Fairchild v. State, 349 Ark. 147 , 76 S.W.3d 884 (2002); Branscum v. State, 345 Ark. 21 , 43 S.W.3d 148 (2001). 2008Fairchild v. State, 349 Ark. 147 , 76 S.W.3d 884 (2002); Branscum v. State, 345 Ark. 21 , 43 S.W.3d 148 (2001). | 8 | 2001–2008 |
Glick v. State
green
2 sentences1990A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Glick v. State, 275 Ark. 34 , 627 S.W.2d 14 (1982); and, when reviewing the denial of the motion, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. 1990A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Glick v. State, 275 Ark. 34 , 627 S.W.2d 14 (1982); and, when reviewing the denial of the motion, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. | 8 | 1984–1990 |
Britt v. State
green
2 sentences2004Arnett v. State, 353 Ark. 165 , 114 S.W.3d 167 (2003); Miles v. State, 350 Ark. 243 , 85 S.W.3d 907 (2002); Britt v. State, 344 Ark. 13 , 38 S.W.3d 363 (2001). 2004Arnett v. State, 353 Ark. 165 , 114 S.W.3d 167 (2003); Miles v. State, 350 Ark. 243 , 85 S.W.3d 907 (2002); Britt v. State, 344 Ark. 13 , 38 S.W.3d 363 (2001). | 7 | 2001–2004 |
Steele v. State
green
2 sentences2021Steele v. State, 2014 Ark. 2016A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Steele v. State, 2014 Ark. | 6 | 2016–2021 |
Fairchild v. State
green
2 sentences2008Fairchild v. State, 349 Ark. 147 , 76 S.W.3d 884 (2002); Branscum v. State, 345 Ark. 21 , 43 S.W.3d 148 (2001). 2008Fairchild v. State, 349 Ark. 147 , 76 S.W.3d 884 (2002); Branscum v. State, 345 Ark. 21 , 43 S.W.3d 148 (2001). | 6 | 2003–2008 |
Mills v. State
green
2 sentences2004Mills v. State, 351 Ark. 523 , 95 S.W.3d 796 (2003); Williams v. State, 346 Ark. 304 , 57 S.W.3d 706 (2001). 2004Mills v. State, 351 Ark. 523 , 95 S.W.3d 796 (2003); Williams v. State, 346 Ark. 304 , 57 S.W.3d 706 (2001). | 6 | 2003–2004 |
Burmingham v. State
green
2 sentences2002Branscum v. State, 345 Ark. 21 , 43 S.W.3d 148 (2001); Burmingham v. State, 342 Ark. 95 , 27 S.W.3d 351 (2000). 2002Branscum v. State, 345 Ark. 21 , 43 S.W.3d 148 (2001); Burmingham v. State, 342 Ark. 95 , 27 S.W.3d 351 (2000). | 6 | 2001–2002 |
McIntosh v. State
green
2 sentences1995McIntosh v. State, 296 Ark. 167 , 753 S.W.2d 273 (1988). 1995McIntosh v. State, 296 Ark. 167 , 753 S.W.2d 273 (1988). | 6 | 1991–1995 |
Gwathney v. State
green
2 sentences2019Gwathney v. State , 2009 Ark. 544 , 381 S.W.3d 744 . 2019Gwathney v. State , 2009 Ark. 544 , 381 S.W.3d 744 . | 5 | 2010–2019 |
Arnett v. State
green
2 sentences2012Arnett v. State, 353 Ark. 165 , 122 S.W.3d 484 (2003). 2012Arnett v. State, 353 Ark. 165 , 122 S.W.3d 484 (2003). | 5 | 2004–2012 |
Walley v. State
green
2 sentences2012Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586 , 112 S.W.3d 349 (2003). 2012Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586 , 112 S.W.3d 349 (2003). | 5 | 2004–2012 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences2006Gardner v. State, 364 Ark. 506 , 221 S.W.3d 339 (2006); Jones v. State, 357 Ark. 545 , 182 S.W.3d 485 (2004). 2006Gardner v. State, 364 Ark. 506 , 221 S.W.3d 339 (2006); Jones v. State, 357 Ark. 545 , 182 S.W.3d 485 (2004). | 5 | 2004–2006 |
Reed v. State
green
2 sentences2005Parker v. State, 355 Ark. 639 , 144 S.W.3d 270 (2004); Reed v. State, 353 Ark. 22 , 109 S.W.3d 665 (2003). 2005Parker v. State, 355 Ark. 639 , 144 S.W.3d 270 (2004); Reed v. State, 353 Ark. 22 , 109 S.W.3d 665 (2003). | 5 | 2004–2005 |
Barr v. State
green
2 sentences2001Barr v. State, 336 Ark. 220 , 984 S.W.2d 792 (1999). 2001Barr v. State, 336 Ark. 220 , 984 S.W.2d 792 (1999). | 5 | 2000–2001 |
Friar v. State
green
2 sentences1994Friar v. State, 313 Ark. 253 , 854 S.W.2d 318 (1993). 1994Friar v. State, 313 Ark. 253 , 854 S.W.2d 318 (1993). | 5 | 1993–1994 |
Holcomb v. State
green
2 sentences2024App. 110 , 286 S.W.3d 746 (2008). 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Dunn v. State, 371 Ark. 140 , 264 S.W.3d 504 (2007). 9 Holcomb v. State, 2014 Ark. 141 , 432 S.W.3d 600 . 4 consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable explanation of the crime.10 A sex offender is required to register and to report in person any change of address.11 When establishing a new residency or temporary domicile at the new address, a sex offender is required to provide notice to the supervising authority no later than five calendar days before doing so. 2024App. 110 , 286 S.W.3d 746 (2008). 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Dunn v. State, 371 Ark. 140 , 264 S.W.3d 504 (2007). 9 Holcomb v. State, 2014 Ark. 141 , 432 S.W.3d 600 . 4 consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable explanation of the crime.10 A sex offender is required to register and to report in person any change of address.11 When establishing a new residency or temporary domicile at the new address, a sex offender is required to provide notice to the supervising authority no later than five calendar days before doing so. | 4 | 2022–2024 |
Dunn v. State
green
2 sentences2024App. 110 , 286 S.W.3d 746 (2008). 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Dunn v. State, 371 Ark. 140 , 264 S.W.3d 504 (2007). 9 Holcomb v. State, 2014 Ark. 141 , 432 S.W.3d 600 . 4 consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable explanation of the crime.10 A sex offender is required to register and to report in person any change of address.11 When establishing a new residency or temporary domicile at the new address, a sex offender is required to provide notice to the supervising authority no later than five calendar days before doing so. 2024App. 110 , 286 S.W.3d 746 (2008). 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Dunn v. State, 371 Ark. 140 , 264 S.W.3d 504 (2007). 9 Holcomb v. State, 2014 Ark. 141 , 432 S.W.3d 600 . 4 consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable explanation of the crime.10 A sex offender is required to register and to report in person any change of address.11 When establishing a new residency or temporary domicile at the new address, a sex offender is required to provide notice to the supervising authority no later than five calendar days before doing so. | 4 | 2022–2024 |
Starling v. State
green
2 sentences2023Starling v. State, 2016 Ark. 20 , 480 S.W.3d 158 . 2023Starling v. State, 2016 Ark. 20 , 480 S.W.3d 158 . | 4 | 2018–2023 |
| Wyles v. State green | 4 | 2011–2016 |
| Parker v. State green | 4 | 2004–2005 |
| Smith v. State green | 4 | 2003–2005 |
| Miles v. State green | 4 | 2003–2004 |
| Johnson v. State green | 4 | 1998–2002 |
| Scott Severance v. State of Arkansas green | 3 | 2024–2026 |
| Jacovan Bush v. State of Arkansas green | 3 | 2025–2026 |
| Carlton Farris v. State of Arkansas neutral | 3 | 2021–2026 |
| Harris v. State green | 3 | 1990–2025 |
| Walter McCray, Jr. v. State of Arkansas green | 3 | 2020–2024 |
| Lowry v. State green | 3 | 2005–2020 |
| Witcher v. State green | 3 | 2016–2017 |
| Farrelly v. State neutral | 3 | 2003–2014 |
| Green v. State green | 3 | 2013–2014 |
| Woolbright v. State green | 3 | 2007–2009 |
| Ferguson v. State green | 3 | 2001–2002 |
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.
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.