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.
8 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2002 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Robinson v. Craighead County Board of Election Commissionersgreen2 sentences2002See generally State v. Craighead County Board of Election Commissioners, 300 Ark. 405 , 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989) (stating that such boards' actions are ministerial only, and that they "[d]o not have the authority to declare a candidate ineligible and remove his name from the ballot when there is a dispute concerning the facts or the law.") The court in Craighead County concluded that mandamus coupled with a declaratory judgment action is the proper legal proceeding to challenge a candidate's eligibility and seek removal of the candidate from the ballot. 300 Ark. at 412 . 2002See generally State v. Craighead County Board of Election Commissioners, 300 Ark. 405 , 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989) (stating that such boards' actions are ministerial only, and that they "[d]o not have the authority to declare a candidate ineligible and remove his name from the ballot when there is a dispute concerning the facts or the law.") The court in Craighead County concluded that mandamus coupled with a declaratory judgment action is the proper legal proceeding to challenge a candidate's eligibility and seek removal of the candidate from the ballot. 300 Ark. at 412 . | 2 | 6 |
Valley v. Bogardgreen2 sentences2001See also, Valley v. Bogard, 342 Ark. 336 , 28 S.W.3d 269 (2000) and Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243 , 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000). 2001See also, Valley v. Bogard, 342 Ark. 336 , 28 S.W.3d 269 (2000) and Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243 , 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Jacobs v. Yatesgreen2 sentences2001See also, Valley v. Bogard, 342 Ark. 336 , 28 S.W.3d 269 (2000) and Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243 , 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000). 2001See also, Valley v. Bogard, 342 Ark. 336 , 28 S.W.3d 269 (2000) and Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243 , 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Looper v. Thrashgreen2 sentences2000See Looper v. Thrush, 334 Ark. 212 , 972 S.W.2d 250 (1998). 2000See Looper v. Thrush, 334 Ark. 212 , 972 S.W.2d 250 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Ivy v. Republican Partygreen1 sentence1998See also Ivy v. Republican Party, 318 Ark. 50 , 883 S.W.2d (1994) (political party chairman and secretary do not have the authority to declare a party nominee ineligible and thereby create a "vacancy in nomination.") The court in Craighead County, supra, concluded that mandamus coupled with a declaratory judgment is the proper legal proceeding to challenge a candidate's eligibility and seek removal of the candidate from the ballot. 300 Ark. at 412 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carroll v. Schneider
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 412 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.