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 1 courts 1915–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences1977See Milam v. State, 253 Ark. 651 , 488 S.W. 2d 16 (1972), and Thompson v. State, 249 Ark. 36 , 458 S.W. 2d 40 (1970). 1977See Milam v. State, 253 Ark. 651 , 488 S.W. 2d 16 (1972), and Thompson v. State, 249 Ark. 36 , 458 S.W. 2d 40 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
Milam v. Stategreen2 sentences1977See Milam v. State, 253 Ark. 651 , 488 S.W. 2d 16 (1972), and Thompson v. State, 249 Ark. 36 , 458 S.W. 2d 40 (1970). 1977See Milam v. State, 253 Ark. 651 , 488 S.W. 2d 16 (1972), and Thompson v. State, 249 Ark. 36 , 458 S.W. 2d 40 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railroad v. Stroud
neutral
2 sentences1925Co. v. Stroud, 67 Ark. 112 , we said: ‘ ‘ There could be no doubt that when a witness is put on the stand to attack or defend character he can only be asked on the examination in chief as to the general character of the person whose character is in question, and he will not be permitted to testify to particular facts either favorable or unfavorable to such person; but when the witness is subjected to cross examination, he may then be asked, with a view to test the value of his testimony, as to particular facts.” Clark v. State, 135 Ark. 570 -73; Carr v. State, 147 Ark. 524 . 1921Co. v. Stroud, 67 Ark. 112 , that “there could he no doubt that when a witness is put on the stand.to attack or defend character, he can only be asked, on the examination in chief, as to the general character of the person whose character is in question, and he will not be permitted to testify to particular facts, either favorable or unfavorable to such a person; but when the witness is subject to cross-examination, he may then be asked, with- a view to test the value of his testimony, as to particular facts.” The learned Attorney General contends that this doctrine has relation only to the re | 2 | 1921–1925 |
Pyle v. Kansas
green
1 sentence2020Barnett cites Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935),2 Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942), and 2 “[W]e deem it sufficient for the present purpose to say that we are unable to approve this narrow view of the requirement of due process. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mooney v. Holohan
green
1 sentence2020Barnett cites Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935),2 Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942), and 2 “[W]e deem it sufficient for the present purpose to say that we are unable to approve this narrow view of the requirement of due process. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Brodie v. Watkins
green
2 sentences1987Accordingly, I would reject the view or rule expressed in the California decision that the majority now adopts, and, instead, adhere to the rule our courts have followed since the court's holdings in Brodie v. Watkins, 33 Ark. 545 , and Berry v. Nichols, 227 Ark. 297 , 298 S.W.2d 40 . 1987Accordingly, I would reject the view or rule expressed in the California decision that the majority now adopts, and, instead, adhere to the rule our courts have followed since the court’s holdings in Brodie v. Watkins, 33 Ark. 545 , and Berry v. Nichols, 227 Ark. 297 , 298 S.W.2d 40 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Berry v. Nichols
green
2 sentences1987Accordingly, I would reject the view or rule expressed in the California decision that the majority now adopts, and, instead, adhere to the rule our courts have followed since the court’s holdings in Brodie v. Watkins, 33 Ark. 545 , and Berry v. Nichols, 227 Ark. 297 , 298 S.W.2d 40 . 1987Accordingly, I would reject the view or rule expressed in the California decision that the majority now adopts, and, instead, adhere to the rule our courts have followed since the court’s holdings in Brodie v. Watkins, 33 Ark. 545 , and Berry v. Nichols, 227 Ark. 297 , 298 S.W.2d 40 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Missouri Ex Rel. Southern Railway Co. v. Mayfield
green
2 sentences1957Ed. 3, 71 S. Ct. 1 , and in the other cases cited therein, I am still of the view that the doctrine of forum non conveniens, when applied in a State court on a transitory cause of action against a non-resident of. the State, is in violation of the said quoted section of the United States Constitution. 2 Aside from the constitutional question, there are other reasons why I think the majority, in the case at bar, has made a mistake in adopting any part of the rule of forum non conveniens. 1957Co. v. Mayfield, 340 U.S. 1 , 71 S.Ct. 1 , 95 L.Ed. 3 , and in the other cases cited therein, I am still of the view that the doctrine of forum non conveniens, when applied in a State court on a transitory cause of action against a non-resident of the State, is in violation of the said quoted section of the United States Constitution. [2] Aside from the constitutional question, there are other reasons why I think the majority, in the case at bar, has made a mistake in adopting any part of the rule of forum non conveniens. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
In re Moore
green
1 sentence1926In re Moore, 4 Wyo. 98 ; Hester v. Commonwealth, 85 Pa. 139 ; In re Edymoin, 8 Howard Pr. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Hester v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1926In re Moore, 4 Wyo. 98 ; Hester v. Commonwealth, 85 Pa. 139 ; In re Edymoin, 8 Howard Pr. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Carr v. State
neutral
1 sentence1925Co. v. Stroud, 67 Ark. 112 , we said: ‘ ‘ There could be no doubt that when a witness is put on the stand to attack or defend character he can only be asked on the examination in chief as to the general character of the person whose character is in question, and he will not be permitted to testify to particular facts either favorable or unfavorable to such person; but when the witness is subjected to cross examination, he may then be asked, with a view to test the value of his testimony, as to particular facts.” Clark v. State, 135 Ark. 570 -73; Carr v. State, 147 Ark. 524 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Green v. Crapo
green
1 sentence1915Elliott v. Kansas City, supra; People v. Bloom, 193 N. Y. 1 ; Green v. Crapo, 181 Mass. 55 ; Whiting Ex parte, 110 Me. 232 ; P. C., C. & St. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Elliott v. Kansas City
green
1 sentence1915Elliott v. Kansas City, supra; People v. Bloom, 193 N. Y. 1 ; Green v. Crapo, 181 Mass. 55 ; Whiting Ex parte, 110 Me. 232 ; P. C., C. & St. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
People v. . Bloom
green
1 sentence1915Elliott v. Kansas City, supra; People v. Bloom, 193 N. Y. 1 ; Green v. Crapo, 181 Mass. 55 ; Whiting Ex parte, 110 Me. 232 ; P. C., C. & St. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Whiting
green
1 sentence1915Elliott v. Kansas City, supra; People v. Bloom, 193 N. Y. 1 ; Green v. Crapo, 181 Mass. 55 ; Whiting Ex parte, 110 Me. 232 ; P. C., C. & St. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.