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 1993–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Buiegreen2 sentences1996In Robinson v. Buie, 307 Ark. 112 , 817 S.W.2d 431 (1991), our supreme court stated: Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a valid and final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars another action by the plaintiff or his privies against the defendant or his privies on the same claim or cause of action. 1996In Robinson v. Buie, 307 Ark. 112 , 817 S.W.2d 431 (1991), our supreme court stated: Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a valid and final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars another action by the plaintiff or his privies against the defendant or his privies on the same claim or cause of action. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Francis v. Francis
green
2 sentences2010Francis v. Francis, 343 Ark. 104 , 31 S.W.3d 841 (2000). 2010Francis v. Francis, 343 Ark. 104 , 31 S.W.3d 841 (2000). | 2 | 2001–2010 |
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2000In Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Taylor, 314 Ark. 62 , 858 S.W.2d 88 (1993), this court noted the elements of res judicata, stating: Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a valid and final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars another action by the plaintiff or his privies against the defendant or his privies on the same claim or cause of action. [Citation omitted.] Privity of parties within the meaning of res judicata means “a person so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right.” Spears v. State Farm Fire 2000In Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Taylor, 314 Ark. 62 , 858 S.W.2d 88 (1993), this court noted the elements of res judicata, stating: Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a valid and final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars another action by the plaintiff or his privies against the defendant or his privies on the same claim or cause of action. [Citation omitted.] Privity of parties within the meaning of res judicata means “a person so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right.” Spears v. State Farm Fire | 2 | 2000–2001 |
Spears v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance
green
2 sentences2000In Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Taylor, 314 Ark. 62 , 858 S.W.2d 88 (1993), this court noted the elements of res judicata, stating: Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a valid and final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars another action by the plaintiff or his privies against the defendant or his privies on the same claim or cause of action. [Citation omitted.] Privity of parties within the meaning of res judicata means “a person so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right.” Spears v. State Farm Fire 2000In Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Taylor, 314 Ark. 62 , 858 S.W.2d 88 (1993), this court noted the elements of res judicata, stating: Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a valid and final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars another action by the plaintiff or his privies against the defendant or his privies on the same claim or cause of action. [Citation omitted.] Privity of parties within the meaning of res judicata means “a person so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right.” Spears v. State Farm Fire | 2 | 1993–2000 |
Middleton v. Lockhart
green
2 sentences2016“Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a valid and final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars another action by the plaintiff or his privies against the defendant or his privies on the same claim or cause of action.” Middleton v. Lockhart, 344 Ark. 572, 578 , 4 Cite as 2016 Ark. 52 43 S.W.3d 113 , 117–18 (2001) (internal citations omitted). 2016“Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a valid and final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars another action by the plaintiff or his privies against the defendant or his privies on the same claim or cause of action.” Middleton v. Lockhart, 344 Ark. 572, 578 , 543 S.W.3d 113 , 117-18 (2001) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Haile v. Johnston
green
1 sentence2016“Under the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion, a valid and final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars another action by the plaintiff or his privies against the defendant or his privies on the same claim or cause of action.” Middleton v. Lockhart, 344 Ark. 572, 578 , 4 Cite as 2016 Ark. 52 43 S.W.3d 113 , 117–18 (2001) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.