apparent violation in Arkansas

2025It should go without saying, but “[w]e took an oath to uphold the Arkansas Constitution, not the Arkansas Reports.”29 When the record reveals such an apparent violation of our 25 Id. 26 The dissent also fails to acknowledge the fundamentally different roles of an intermediate appellate court and a jurisdiction’s court of last resort. 27 560 U.S. 284, 301 (2010) (Scalia, J., dissenting). 28 Id. (emphasis in original). 29 Thurston v. League of Women Voters of Ark., 2022 Ark. 32 , at 23, 639 S.W.3d 319 , 330 (Womack, J., dissenting). 8 constitution—a violation that affects every single Arkansan a

2025It should go without saying, but “[w]e took an oath to uphold the Arkansas Constitution, not the Arkansas Reports.”29 When the record reveals such an apparent violation of our 25 Id. 26 The dissent also fails to acknowledge the fundamentally different roles of an intermediate appellate court and a jurisdiction’s court of last resort. 27 560 U.S. 284, 301 (2010) (Scalia, J., dissenting). 28 Id. (emphasis in original). 29 Thurston v. League of Women Voters of Ark., 2022 Ark. 32 , at 23, 639 S.W.3d 319 , 330 (Womack, J., dissenting). 8 constitution—a violation that affects every single Arkansan a

2020Sims, 2018 Ark. 271 , 555 S.W.3d 868 .

2012Howard asserts that this failure to produce evidences an apparent violation of his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and entitles him to a hearing in circuit court to decide the merit of his error coram nobis petition.

2012Howard asserts that this failure to produce evidences an apparent violation of his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and entitles him to a hearing in circuit court to decide the merit of his error coram nobis petition.

2003White v. Winston, 302 Ark. 345 , 789 S.W.2d 459 (1990).

2003White v. Winston, 302 Ark. 345 , 789 S.W.2d 459 (1990).

1974If the application of the apparent doctrine of the Nix case that a school district board has the implied power to employ people to “play a part in preventing assessed values from falling below the minimum percentage required by law for the receipt of all available state-aid funds” as a necessary incident to doing all things necessary for the proper conduct of schools, along with the casual “proof text” of Safferstone v. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70 , 357 S.W. 2d 3 , that one of the prime duties of a school board is to conserve the resources of the district, is permitted to continue the process of erodi

1974If the application of the apparent doctrine of the Nix case that a school district board has the implied power to employ people to “play a part in preventing assessed values from falling below the minimum percentage required by law for the receipt of all available state-aid funds” as a necessary incident to doing all things necessary for the proper conduct of schools, along with the casual “proof text” of Safferstone v. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70 , 357 S.W. 2d 3 , that one of the prime duties of a school board is to conserve the resources of the district, is permitted to continue the process of erodi

1953It said: ‘ ‘ The allowance of interest in eminent domain cases is only an apparent exception, which has its origin in the Constitution. ’ ’ Jacobs, et al. v. U. S., 290 U. S. 13 , 54 S. Ct. 26 , 78 L.

1953It said: ‘ ‘ The allowance of interest in eminent domain cases is only an apparent exception, which has its origin in the Constitution. ’ ’ Jacobs, et al. v. U. S., 290 U. S. 13 , 54 S. Ct. 26 , 78 L.

1926This was a decision by a Court of Appeals of Missouri, but it was recognized and stated in that case that “where the assured’s title is under a deed, making him only- a tenant by the entirety with his wife, he is not the sole and unconditional owner.” The court further said: “If this had been all that was shown in this case as to the title, we would be inclined to hold the policy void, in view of what the Supreme Court (of Missouri) held as to the wife having a substantial interest when holding as a tenant by the entirety, in Holmes v. Kansas City, 209 Mo. 513 , 108 S. W. 9, 1134 , 123 Am.

1926This was a decision by a Court of Appeals of Missouri, but it was recognized and stated in that case that “where the assured’s title is under a deed, making him only- a tenant by the entirety with his wife, he is not the sole and unconditional owner.” The court further said: “If this had been all that was shown in this case as to the title, we would be inclined to hold the policy void, in view of what the Supreme Court (of Missouri) held as to the wife having a substantial interest when holding as a tenant by the entirety, in Holmes v. Kansas City, 209 Mo. 513 , 108 S. W. 9, 1134 , 123 Am.

1926Co., 189 S. W. 626 , is cited as an apparent exception to the rule.

1923Martin v. Ogden, 41 Ark. 186 ; Wright v. Graham, 42 Ark. 140 ; Hill v. Gregory, 64 Ark. 317 ; Morgan v. Kendrick, 94 Ark. 394 .

1923Martin v. Ogden, 41 Ark. 186 ; Wright v. Graham, 42 Ark. 140 ; Hill v. Gregory, 64 Ark. 317 ; Morgan v. Kendrick, 94 Ark. 394 .

1923Martin v. Ogden, 41 Ark. 186 ; Wright v. Graham, 42 Ark. 140 ; Hill v. Gregory, 64 Ark. 317 ; Morgan v. Kendrick, 94 Ark. 394 .

1923Martin v. Ogden, 41 Ark. 186 ; Wright v. Graham, 42 Ark. 140 ; Hill v. Gregory, 64 Ark. 317 ; Morgan v. Kendrick, 94 Ark. 394 .