7 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Callaway v. Cherrygreen2 sentences1994See Callaway v. Cherry, 229 Ark. 297 , 314 S.W.2d 506 (1958). 1994See Callaway v. Cherry, 229 Ark. 297 , 314 S.W.2d 506 (1958). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Turnage v. Matkin
neutral
2 sentences1973Turnage v. Matkin, 227 Ark. 528 , 299 S.W. 2d 831 (1957). 1973Turnage v. Matkin, 227 Ark. 528 , 299 S.W. 2d 831 (1957). | 2 | 1969–1973 |
Miller v. State
green
2 sentences2001In Miller v. State, 328 Ark. 121 , 942 S.W.2d 825 (1997), this court was met with a similar situation where the defense had not been diligent in seeking information by requesting a continuance. 2001In Miller v. State, 328 Ark. 121 , 942 S.W.2d 825 (1997), this court was met with a similar situation where the defense had not been diligent in seeking information by requesting a continuance. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Clark v. Allstate Insurance Company
green
2 sentences1985Co., 22 Ariz. App. 601 , 529 P.2d 1195 (1975) where there was a similar disclaimer of intent to do harm when one person struck another in the face causing serious injury. 1985Co., 22 Ariz. App. 601 , 529 P.2d 1195 (1975) where there was a similar disclaimer of intent to do harm when one person struck another in the face causing serious injury. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Pruitt v. Taylor
green
2 sentences1974The facts in the North Carolina case of Pruitt v. Taylor, 247 N. C. 380 , 100 S. E. 2d 841 , cited by the majority, are quite different from the situation at bar. 1974The facts in the North Carolina case of Pruitt v. Taylor, 247 N. C. 380 , 100 S. E. 2d 841 , cited by the majority, are quite different from the situation at bar. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Jones v. State
neutral
2 sentences1963In this situation the rule is clearly set out in the Blachard case, supra, where it is stated: “On review by this Court in such proceedings by certiorari, we do not try the criminal contempt case de novo, despite any such language so intimating as contained in Jones v. State, 170 Ark. 863 , 281 S. W. 663 . 1963In this situation the rule is clearly set out in the Blachard case, supra, where it is stated: “On review by this Court in such proceedings by certiorari, we do not try the criminal contempt case de novo, despite any such language so intimating as contained in Jones v. State, 170 Ark. 863 , 281 S. W. 663 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.