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 3 courts 1992–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohrgreen1 sentence1997Id.; see also Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 116 S.Ct. 2240 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
25 Residents v. Arkansas Highway & Transportation Commission
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2014Id. | 2 | 2003–2014 |
De Veau v. Braisted
green
2 sentences2005The overriding inquiry in such situations was enunciated by the Court in DeVeau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (1960): The question in each case where unpleasant consequences are brought to bear upon an individual for prior conduct, is whether the legislative aim was to punish that individual for past activity, or whether the restriction of the individual comes about as a relevant incident to a regulation of a present situation. . . . 363 U.S. at 160 . 339 Ark. at 280 . 2005The overriding inquiry in such situations was enunciated by the Court in DeVeau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (1960): The question in each case where unpleasant consequences are brought to bear upon an individual for prior conduct, is whether the legislative aim was to punish that individual for past activity, or whether the restriction of the individual comes about as a relevant incident to a regulation of a present situation. . . . 363 U.S. at 160 . 339 Ark. at 280 . | 2 | 1999–2005 |
GSS, LLC v. Centerpoint Energy Gas Transmission Co.
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kellar v. Fayetteville Police Department
green
2 sentences2005The overriding inquiry in such situations was enunciated by the Court in DeVeau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (1960): The question in each case where unpleasant consequences are brought to bear upon an individual for prior conduct, is whether the legislative aim was to punish that individual for past activity, or whether the restriction of the individual comes about as a relevant incident to a regulation of a present situation. . . . 363 U.S. at 160 . 339 Ark. at 280 . 2005The court concluded that the provisions of the legislation requiring the registration of sex offenders do not "impose any affirmative disability or restraint on an offender. . . ." Id. at 284 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Bush v. National School Studios, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992In Bush v. National School Studios, Inc., 407 N.W.2d 883 (Wisc. 1987), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin gave a liberal construction to its newly adopted franchise act: In determining whether a dealership exists within the scope of a state franchise regulation, courts should not focus solely on identifying the tell-tale trappings of the traditional franchise; rather, courts should consider the overriding principle of whether the business’ status is dependent upon the relationship with the grantor for its economic livelihood. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.