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 1921–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chunestudy v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 (holding that prosecutor’s question about defendant’s prior statement regarding whether he had had sex with his daughter while she was a minor did not fall within exception); McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257 , 208 S.W.3d 173 (2005) (holding that prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant about his mother’s alleged statement that he had been accused of a crime in Jamaica was not the sort of error that fell within third Wicks exception); Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002) (holding that defendant could not raise for f 2016See, e.g., Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 (holding that prosecutor’s question about defendant’s prior statement regarding whether he had had sex with his daughter while she was a minor did not fall within exception); McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257 , 208 S.W.3d 173 (2005) (holding that prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant about his mother’s alleged statement that he had been accused of a crime in Jamaica was not the sort of error that fell within third Wicks exception); Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002) (holding that defendant could not raise for f | 1 | 1 |
Allard v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See id. | 1 | 1 |
Wicks v. Stategreen1 sentence1987See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Camacho-Mendoza v. State
neutral
1 sentence2024Camacho-Mendoza v. State, 2009 Ark. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Buckley v. State
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 (holding that prosecutor’s question about defendant’s prior statement regarding whether he had had sex with his daughter while she was a minor did not fall within exception); McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257 , 208 S.W.3d 173 (2005) (holding that prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant about his mother’s alleged statement that he had been accused of a crime in Jamaica was not the sort of error that fell within third Wicks exception); Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002) (holding that defendant could not raise for f 2016See, e.g., Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 (holding that prosecutor’s question about defendant’s prior statement regarding whether he had had sex with his daughter while she was a minor did not fall within exception); McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257 , 208 S.W.3d 173 (2005) (holding that prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant about his mother’s alleged statement that he had been accused of a crime in Jamaica was not the sort of error that fell within third Wicks exception); Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002) (holding that defendant could not raise for f | 1 | 2016–2016 |
McKenzie v. State
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 (holding that prosecutor’s question about defendant’s prior statement regarding whether he had had sex with his daughter while she was a minor did not fall within exception); McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257 , 208 S.W.3d 173 (2005) (holding that prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant about his mother’s alleged statement that he had been accused of a crime in Jamaica was not the sort of error that fell within third Wicks exception); Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002) (holding that defendant could not raise for f 2016See, e.g., Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 (holding that prosecutor’s question about defendant’s prior statement regarding whether he had had sex with his daughter while she was a minor did not fall within exception); McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257 , 208 S.W.3d 173 (2005) (holding that prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant about his mother’s alleged statement that he had been accused of a crime in Jamaica was not the sort of error that fell within third Wicks exception); Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002) (holding that defendant could not raise for f | 1 | 2016–2016 |
David v. State
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 (holding that prosecutor’s question about defendant’s prior statement regarding whether he had had sex with his daughter while she was a minor did not fall within exception); McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257 , 208 S.W.3d 173 (2005) (holding that prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant about his mother’s alleged statement that he had been accused of a crime in Jamaica was not the sort of error that fell within third Wicks exception); Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002) (holding that defendant could not raise for f 2016See, e.g., Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 (holding that prosecutor’s question about defendant’s prior statement regarding whether he had had sex with his daughter while she was a minor did not fall within exception); McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257 , 208 S.W.3d 173 (2005) (holding that prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant about his mother’s alleged statement that he had been accused of a crime in Jamaica was not the sort of error that fell within third Wicks exception); Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002) (holding that defendant could not raise for f | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Abbott v. State
green
1 sentence1976Stat. Ann. § 43-2725.2 (Supp. 1975); Abbott v. State, 256 Ark. 558 , 508 S.W. 2d .733. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Blunt v. Blunt
green
2 sentences1961So that it cannot he applied like ordinary questions of fact, which are independent of this sort of presumption.’ ” The Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Blunt v. Blunt (1947), 198 Okla. 138 , 176 Pac. 2d 471 , that the marriage relationship is of such public concern as to require courts to scrutinize actions to annul marriages to discern their probable effect on the public as well as on the individual parties. 1961So that it cannot he applied like ordinary questions of fact, which are independent of this sort of presumption.’ ” The Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Blunt v. Blunt (1947), 198 Okla. 138 , 176 Pac. 2d 471 , that the marriage relationship is of such public concern as to require courts to scrutinize actions to annul marriages to discern their probable effect on the public as well as on the individual parties. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Stone v. Stone
green
2 sentences1961Likewise, in Stone v. Stone (1944), 193 Okla. 458 , 145 Pac. 2d 212 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the evidence in an action to annul a marriage had to be strong and conclusive. 1961Likewise, in Stone v. Stone (1944), 193 Okla. 458 , 145 Pac. 2d 212 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the evidence in an action to annul a marriage had to be strong and conclusive. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Estes v. Merrill
neutral
1 sentence1930So that it cannot be applied like ordinary questions of fact, which are independent of this sort of presumption.” Estes v. Merrill, 121 Ark. 361 , 181 Ark. 136 . | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Gist v. Hanly
neutral
1 sentence1921The validity of this sort of claim was recognized hy this court in the case of Gist v. Hanley, 33 Ark. 233 . | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.