signature requirement (Arkansas) · Go Syfert
← Arkansas issues

signature requirement in Arkansas

8 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2016 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Rock v. Bryantgreen
ared · 1978 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995See Lendall v. Bryant and Rock v. Bryant, supra. In Bradley v. Mandel, 449 F. Supp. 983 (D.

11
Bradley v. Mandelgreen
mdd · 1978 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995See Lendall v. Bryant and Rock v. Bryant, supra. In Bradley v. Mandel, 449 F. Supp. 983 (D.

11

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
Lange v. Martin green
ark · 2016
1 sentence

2016On September 9, 2016, we ordered bifurcation, appointed a special master, and set a briefing schedule for the signature challenge, which will be addressed in a separate opinion. 3 Cite as 2016 Ark. 337 which the casino is located a net casino gaming receipts tax equal to one and one-half percent (1.5%) of its annual net casino gaming receipts; defining annual net casino gaming receipts as gross receipts for a 12-month period from casino gaming less amounts paid out or reserved as winnings to casino patrons for that 12-month period; subjecting each casino to the same income, property, sales, us

12016–2016
Our Community, Our Dollars v. Bullock green
ark · 2014
1 sentence

2014Our 5 Cite as 2014 Ark. 457 Community maintains that the initial complaint filed by appellees was deficient because it failed to plead facts identifying any specific signature alleged to be invalid; because the complaint failed to set forth particular facts showing the total number of challenged signatures; because it did not identify the specific basis for challenging any one signature; and because the complaint did not allege how invalidating any particular signatures would render the certification erroneous.

12014–2014
Dunkum v. Moore green
ark · 1979
2 sentences

2005I note, however, that the term "qualified voter" may be used interchangeably with "registered voter." See Dunkum v. Moore, 265 Ark. 544 , 550-551 , 580 S.W.2d 183 (1979).

2005I note, however, that the term "qualified voter" may be used interchangeably with "registered voter." See Dunkum v. Moore, 265 Ark. 544 , 550-551 , 580 S.W.2d 183 (1979).

12005–2005
Misskelley v. State green
ark · 1996
2 sentences

2002Misskelley v. State, 323 Ark. 449 , 915 S.W.2d 702 (1996).

2002Misskelley v. State, 323 Ark. 449 , 915 S.W.2d 702 (1996).

12002–2002
CITIZENS TO ESTABLISH REFORM PARTY v. Priest green
ared · 1996
2 sentences

1999Pertinent sections of the court's ruling in Citizens to Establish a Reform Party v. Priest, 970 F.Supp. 690 (E.D.

1999Although the district court referred several times in its opinion to the "individual" as well as the "combined" effect of the Arkansas statutes placing unreasonable burdens on the plaintiffs (see 970 F.Supp. at 694 , 696 , 697 Conclusions of Law 5, 9 and 12), the court also stated that: "[w]hen examining the entire statutory scheme, it is important to evaluate the combined effect of the statutory requirements.

11999–1999
Boyd v. State green
ark · 1993
2 sentences

1996The issue was first addressed in Boyd v. State, 313 Ark. 171 , 853 S.W.2d 263 (1993).

1996The issue was first addressed in Boyd v. State, 313 Ark. 171 , 853 S.W.2d 263 (1993).

11996–1996
Pratt v. Begley green
kyed · 1970
1 sentence

1995Apparently, however, the statutory scheme in Pratt, supra, did not include a signature requirement.

11995–1995
Dixon v. Hall, Secretary of State green
ark · 1946
2 sentences

1983As far as the signature requirement is concerned, the case is governed by Dixon v. Hall, 210 Ark. 891 , 198 S.W.2d 1002 (1946).

1983As far as the signature requirement is concerned, the case is governed by Dixon v. Hall, 210 Ark. 891 , 198 S.W.2d 1002 (1946).

11983–1983

Where else courts name it

IL 38 (1941–2025) PA 36 (1982–2026) CA 27 (1969–2025) TX 25 (1948–2026) MO 22 (1982–2023) NY 13 (1928–2025) CT 13 (1983–2022) NC 11 (1940–2025) OH 11 (1991–2025) MD 11 (1914–2022) WA 11 (1973–2025) IN 10 (1913–2015) TN 10 (2000–2026) GA 9 (1907–2023) AL 9 (1985–2003) AZ 9 (1991–2022) AR 8 (1983–2016) MI 8 (1970–2023) ID 7 (1978–2023) CO 7 (2002–2025) MN 7 (1981–2016) IA 7 (1909–2025) KY 7 (1961–2026) WI 6 (1980–2020) UT 4 (2011–2024) OR 4 (1984–2023) VA 4 (2001–2023) MA 4 (1982–2024) AK 3 (1982–2021) LA 3 (1989–2024) SD 3 (2011–2026) NM 3 (1995–2012) WV 3 (1992–2019) FL 3 (1994–2009) OK 3 (1917–2000) NJ 2 (2003–2020) MT 2 (1984–2002) KS 2 (2003–2024) MS 2 (2017–2018) NE 2 (1995–1997)

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