defendant breached standard (Arkansas) · Go Syfert
← Arkansas issues

defendant breached standard in Arkansas

8 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 2 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Barnett v. Cleghorn green
arkctapp · 2017
2 sentences

2025“To establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached a standard of care, that damages were sustained, and that the defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of those damages.” Barnett v. Cleghorn, 2017 Ark.

2023“To establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached a standard of care, that damages were sustained, and that the defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of those damages.” Barnett v. Cleghorn, 2017 Ark.

22023–2025
Fryar v. Touchstone Physical Therapy, Inc. green
ark · 2006
2 sentences

2007Mitchell v. Lincoln, supra; Fryar v. Touchstone Physical Therapy, Inc., 365 Ark. 295 , 229 S.W.3d 7 (2006).

2007Mitchell v. Lincoln, supra; Fryar v. Touchstone Physical Therapy, Inc., 365 Ark. 295 , 229 S.W.3d 7 (2006).

12007–2007
Dodd v. Sparks Regional Medical Center green
arkctapp · 2005
2 sentences

2007App. 191 , 204 S.W.3d 579 (2005). 3 In order to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact, the plaintiffs medical expert must state “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the defendant breached the standard of care and that the alleged breach was a proximate cause of the injury.

2007Ctr., 90 Ark.App. 191 , 204 S.W.3d 579 (2005). [3] In order to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact, the plaintiff's medical expert must state "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty" that the defendant breached the standard of care and that the alleged breach was a proximate cause of the injury.

12007–2007
Pollard v. Union Pacific Railroad green
arkctapp · 2001
1 sentence

2002Id.

12002–2002
Dodson v. Charter Behavioral Health System of Northwest Arkansas, Inc. green
ark · 1998
2 sentences

2002Health Sys., Inc., 335 Ark. 96 , 983 S.W.2d 98 (1998), this court set out the requirements for a showing of negligence in the medical context: To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must show that damages were sustained, that the defendant breached the standard of care, and that the defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of the damages.

2002Health Sys., Inc., 335 Ark. 96 , 983 S.W.2d 98 (1998), this court set out the requirements for a showing of negligence in the medical context: To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must show that damages were sustained, that the defendant breached the standard of care, and that the defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of the damages.

12002–2002
Burns v. Boot Scooters, Inc. green
arkctapp · 1998
1 sentence

2000Burns v. Boot Scooters, Inc., 61 Ark.

12000–2000
Union Pacific Railroad v. Sharp green
ark · 1997
2 sentences

1998Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Sharp, 330 Ark. 174 , 952 S.W.2d 658 (1997).

1998Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Sharp, 330 Ark. 174 , 952 S.W.2d 658 (1997).

11998–1998
Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance v. Allen green
ark · 1996
2 sentences

1997See Ouachita Wilderness, *662 supra ; Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. v. Allen, 326 Ark. 1023 , 934 S.W.2d 527 (1996).

1997See Ouachita Wilderness, *662 supra ; Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. v. Allen, 326 Ark. 1023 , 934 S.W.2d 527 (1996).

11997–1997

Where else courts name it

MI 79 (2004–2026) TX 29 (2003–2024) LA 28 (1986–2023) NY 21 (2000–2025) KY 14 (2003–2025) OH 13 (1993–2025) AR 8 (1997–2025) DC 7 (1986–2007) CA 7 (2010–2026) CT 5 (1993–2014) MD 5 (2010–2025) AL 4 (1992–2009) IL 4 (2006–2010) AZ 3 (1994–2023) VT 3 (1994–2010) NH 2 (2002–2003) OR 2 (1989–2022) WI 2 (1999–2008)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check