propriety instruction in Arkansas

2003In reaching McMahan’s arguments about the propriety of the instruction, this court held that the giving of the instruction “effectively became the riding, and we can see no sound reason why more should be required.” McMahan, 319 Ark. at 93-94 .

2003In reaching McMahan's arguments about the propriety of the instruction, this court held that the giving of the instruction "effectively became the ruling, and we can see no sound reason why more should be required." McMahan, 319 Ark. at 93-94 , 890 S.W.2d 242 . *412 McMahan , however, appears to be an unusual decision, and our case law otherwise overwhelmingly requires a party to obtain a ruling on an objection in order to preserve the issue for appellate review.

2003In McDonald v. Wilcox, 300 Ark. 445 , 780 S.W.2d 17 (1989), we explained the reason for this rule as follows: We have held many times that the burden of obtaining a ruling is on the movant, and objections and questions left unresolved are waived and may not be relied upon on appeal.

2003In McDonald v. Wilcox, 300 Ark. 445 , 780 S.W.2d 17 (1989), we explained the reason for this rule as follows: We have held many times that the burden of obtaining a ruling is on the movant, and objections and questions left unresolved are waived and may not be relied upon on appeal.

1992Abernathy v. Patterson, 295 Ark. 551 , 750 S.W.2d 406 (1988).

1992Abernathy v. Patterson, 295 Ark. 551 , 750 S.W.2d 406 (1988).

1991In Peals v. State, 266 Ark. 410 , 584 S.W.2d 1 (1979), this Court, considering the propriety of an instruction on “choice of evils,” stated, “We think the matter of justification was treated as an affirmative defense at the trial.

1991In Peals v. State, 266 Ark. 410 , 584 S.W.2d 1 (1979), this Court, considering the propriety of an instruction on “choice of evils,” stated, “We think the matter of justification was treated as an affirmative defense at the trial.

1974In the recent case of Ford v. State, 253 Ark. 5 , 484 S.W. 2d 90 (1972), appellant argued for the first time on appeal the propriety of an instruction.

1974In the recent case of Ford v. State, 253 Ark. 5 , 484 S.W. 2d 90 (1972), appellant argued for the first time on appeal the propriety of an instruction.

1946“There should be accorded to the Workmen’s Compensation Act a broad and liberal construction and doubtful cases should be resolved in favor of compensation.” (Headnote 4) Elm Springs Canning Co. v. Sullins, 207 Ark. 257 , 180 S. W. 2d 113 .

1946“There should be accorded to the Workmen’s Compensation Act a broad and liberal construction and doubtful cases should be resolved in favor of compensation.” (Headnote 4) Elm Springs Canning Co. v. Sullins, 207 Ark. 257 , 180 S. W. 2d 113 .

1851Thus in New York, Kent, Chief Justice, in the case of Denton v. Livingston, as early as 1812, recognized and approved the decision in that case, after which for 27 years, in a series of uniform decisions, it was adhered to, until, in the case of Green v. Burk, 23 Wend. 490 , Cowan, J., for the first time in that State, questioned the propriety of the rule in its unqualified sense, after which Bkonson, C.