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 1981–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
MacKey v. Stategreen2 sentences1993Mackey v. State, 279 Ark. 307, 315-16 , 651 S.W.2d 82, 86 (1983). 1993Mackey v. State, 279 Ark. 307, 315-16 , 651 S.W.2d 82, 86 (1983). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gustafson v. State
green
2 sentences1981Recently, in Gustafson v. State, 267 Ark. 278 , 590 S.W. 2d 853 (1979), this court adopted a three-fold test of admissibility under 608 (b), saying that 1) the question must be asked in good faith, 2) the probative value of the question must outweigh its prejudicial effect, and 3) the prior conduct must relate to the defendant’s truthfulness. 1981Recently, in Gustafson v. State, 267 Ark. 278 , 590 S.W. 2d 853 (1979), this court adopted a three-fold test of admissibility under 608 (b), saying that 1) the question must be asked in good faith, 2) the probative value of the question must outweigh its prejudicial effect, and 3) the prior conduct must relate to the defendant’s truthfulness. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013First, TEMCO follows the reasoning of Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241 , 308 S.W.3d 135 , and argues that the materialman’s lien statute violates the doctrine of the separation of powers because it creates a new rule of procedure by requiring a builder to file the lien notice as a prerequisite to filing suit to enforce its contract. 2013First, TEMCO follows the reasoning of Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241 , 308 S.W.3d 135 , and argues that the materialman’s lien statute violates the doctrine of the separation of powers because it creates a new rule of procedure by requiring a builder to file the lien notice as a prerequisite to filing suit to enforce its contract. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Cameron v. State
green
2 sentences1983Cameron v. State, 272 Ark. 282 , 613 S.W.2d 593 (1981). 1983Cameron v. State, 272 Ark. 282 , 613 S.W.2d 593 (1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences1981As to the cashbox, the officers' conduct met the three-fold standard to be deduced from Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971): First, the plain view doctrine was satisfied, because the officers were acting under the authority of a valid search warrant and had a right to search the premises. 1981As to the cashbox, the officers' conduct met the three-fold standard to be deduced from Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971): First, the plain view doctrine was satisfied, because the officers were acting under the authority of a valid search warrant and had a right to search the premises. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.