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.
7 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1920–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McCuen v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Samples v. State, 2012 Ark. 146 , at 2, 2012 WL 1130592 (per curiam) (Appellant’s motion did not assert a mere clerical error, but instead asserted that the date reflected in the judgment did not conform with the plea agreement which was a substantive claim.); Grissom v. State, 2009 Ark. 557 , at 2-3, 2009 WL 3681389 (per curiam) (An amended judgment entered nunc pro tunc to correct a clerical oversight because the judgment did not reflect that the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender was a proper use of nunc pro tunc order.); McCuen v. State, 338 Ark. 631, 634-35 , 999 S.W.2d 68 2016See Samples v. State, 2012 Ark. 146 , at 2, 2012 WL 1130592 (per curiam) (Appellant’s motion did not assert a mere clerical error, but instead asserted that the date reflected in the judgment did not conform with the plea agreement which was a substantive claim.); Grissom v. State, 2009 Ark. 557 , at 2-3, 2009 WL 3681389 (per curiam) (An amended judgment entered nunc pro tunc to correct a clerical oversight because the judgment did not reflect that the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender was a proper use of nunc pro tunc order.); McCuen v. State, 338 Ark. 631, 634-35 , 999 S.W.2d 68 | 1 | 1 |
Bobo v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2006See Bobo v. Jones, 364 Ark. 564 , 222 S.W.3d 197 (2006); Cox v. Miller, 363 Ark. 54 , 210 S.W.3d 842 (2005); Carson v. Drew County, 354 Ark. 621 , 128 S.W.3d 423 (2003). 2006See Bobo v. Jones, 364 Ark. 564 , 222 S.W.3d 197 (2006); Cox v. Miller, 363 Ark. 54 , 210 S.W.3d 842 (2005); Carson v. Drew County, 354 Ark. 621 , 128 S.W.3d 423 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jamie Demon Jacobs v. State of Arkansas
neutral
1 sentence2025In Jacobs v. State, 2023 Ark. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Mark Davis v. State of Arkansas
green
2 sentences2025Therefore, Davis’s motion is treated as one seeking Rule 37.1 postconviction relief. 2024 Ark. 2025Id. at 6, 700 S.W.3d at 246 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Griggs v. Cook
green
2 sentences2016Essentially, a “nunc pro tunc device cannot be used to enter an order in a case when the trial court has already lost the authority to act.” Griggs, 315 Ark. at 78 , 864 S.W.2d at 834 . 2016Essentially, a “nunc pro tunc device cannot be used to enter an order in a case when the trial court has already lost the authority to act.” Griggs, 315 Ark. at 78 , 864 S.W.2d at 834 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Cox v. Miller
green
2 sentences2006See Bobo v. Jones, 364 Ark. 564 , 222 S.W.3d 197 (2006); Cox v. Miller, 363 Ark. 54 , 210 S.W.3d 842 (2005); Carson v. Drew County, 354 Ark. 621 , 128 S.W.3d 423 (2003). 2006See Bobo v. Jones, 364 Ark. 564 , 222 S.W.3d 197 (2006); Cox v. Miller, 363 Ark. 54 , 210 S.W.3d 842 (2005); Carson v. Drew County, 354 Ark. 621 , 128 S.W.3d 423 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Carson v. County of Drew
green
2 sentences2006See Bobo v. Jones, 364 Ark. 564 , 222 S.W.3d 197 (2006); Cox v. Miller, 363 Ark. 54 , 210 S.W.3d 842 (2005); Carson v. Drew County, 354 Ark. 621 , 128 S.W.3d 423 (2003). 2006See Bobo v. Jones, 364 Ark. 564 , 222 S.W.3d 197 (2006); Cox v. Miller, 363 Ark. 54 , 210 S.W.3d 842 (2005); Carson v. Drew County, 354 Ark. 621 , 128 S.W.3d 423 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Hargreaves v. United States
green
1 sentence1943In the case of Wilson v. U. S., 77 Fed. 2d 236, in which certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, 295 U. S. 759 , 55 S. Ct. 926 , 79 L. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Rudo v. A. H. Bull Steamship Co.
green
1 sentence1943In the case of Wilson v. U. S., 77 Fed. 2d 236, in which certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, 295 U. S. 759 , 55 S. Ct. 926 , 79 L. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Ballou v. Davis
green
1 sentence1943In the case of Wilson v. U. S., 77 Fed. 2d 236, in which certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, 295 U. S. 759 , 55 S. Ct. 926 , 79 L. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Hyde and Smith v. State
neutral
2 sentences1927In Hyde & Smith v. State, 168 Ark. 580 , 271 S. W. 330 , on an indictment for robbery, the indictment left out the word “did” in the clause alleging that, “by force and. intimidation, did take from the person of Sam Blevins,” etc. The word “did” as above used was omitted and assigned as error. 1927In Hyde & Smith v. State, 168 Ark. 580 , 271 S. W. 330 , on an indictment for robbery, the indictment left out the word “did” in the clause alleging that, “by force and. intimidation, did take from the person of Sam Blevins,” etc. The word “did” as above used was omitted and assigned as error. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Athletic Mining & Smelting Co. v. Sharp
neutral
1 sentence1920But the point there was that certain lands had been twice described in the act, and we held this as an obvious error. iBut neither in that case, nor in any other case to which my attention has been called prior to that of Athletic Mining & Smelting Co. v. Sharp, supra, has it ever been held that it is immaterial that the Governor does not sign the same, or substantially the same, bill passed by the Legislature, if the variance arises out of a mere clerical error or misprision of an enrolling clerk or other clerical officer. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.