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 1 courts 2014–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Engram v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Nooner v. State, 2014 Ark. 296 , 438 S.W.3d 233 (citing Engram v. State, 360 Ark. 140 , 200 S.W.3d 367 (2004)) (“[W]hat has remained consistent . . . has been a discussion of the three Robbins factors and this court’s overarching concern that we will reopen a case only to address an ‘error in the appellate process,’ meaning an error that this court made or overlooked while reviewing a case in which the death sentence was imposed.). 2014See Nooner v. State, 2014 Ark. 296 , 438 S.W.3d 233 (citing Engram v. State, 360 Ark. 140 , 200 S.W.3d 367 (2004)) (“[W]hat has remained consistent . . . has been a discussion of the three Robbins factors and this court’s overarching concern that we will reopen a case only to address an ‘error in the appellate process,’ meaning an error that this court made or overlooked while reviewing a case in which the death sentence was imposed.). | 4 | 4 |
Nooner v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Indeed, we stated in Robbins that recall of our mandate is to be granted only in extraordinary circumstances as a last resort to “avoid a miscarriage of justice” or “to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” See Robbins, 353 Ark. at 563 , 114 S.W.3d at 222 (quoting Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 558 (1998), and Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 357 (6th Cir. 1993)). 7 CR-94-358 Cite as 2014 Ark. 296 Regardless of any inconsistencies in our decisions concerning the mandatory satisfaction of the three Robbins factors, what has remained consistent in these cases has been a discus 2014Discussion of the three Robbins factors is thus an appropriate means of determining whether extraordinary 9 CR-94-358 Cite as 2014 Ark. 296 circumstances exists to warrant recall of our mandate, even though our inherent power to recall our mandate is not limited by strict satisfaction of all three factors in all cases. | 1 | 3 |
Lee v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Lee v. State, 367 Ark. 84, 88 , 238 S.W.3d 52, 55 (2006). 2021Lee v. State, 367 Ark. 84, 88 , 238 S.W.3d 52, 55 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Calderon v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2014Indeed, we stated in Robbins that recall of our mandate is to be granted only in extraordinary circumstances as a last resort to “avoid a miscarriage of justice” or “to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” See Robbins, 353 Ark. at 563 , 114 S.W.3d at 222 (quoting Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 558 (1998), and Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 357 (6th Cir. 1993)). 7 CR-94-358 Cite as 2014 Ark. 296 Regardless of any inconsistencies in our decisions concerning the mandatory satisfaction of the three Robbins factors, what has remained consistent in these cases has been a discus 2014Indeed, we stated in Robbins that recall of our mandate is to be granted only in extraordinary circumstances as a last resort to “avoid a miscarriage of justice” or “to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” See Robbins, 353 Ark. at 563 , 114 S.W.3d at 222 (quoting Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 558 , 118 S.Ct. 1489 , 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998), and Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 357 (6th Cir.1993)). | sRegardless of any inconsistencies in our decisions concerning the mandatory satisfaction of the three Robbins factors, what has remained consistent in these cases has been a dis | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roberts v. State
green
2 sentences2020Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56 , 425 S.W.3d 771 . 2020Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56 , 425 S.W.3d 771 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
John Demjanjuk v. Joseph Petrovsky
green
2 sentences2014Indeed, we stated in Robbins that recall of our mandate is to be granted only in extraordinary circumstances as a last resort to “avoid a miscarriage of justice” or “to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” See Robbins, 353 Ark. at 563 , 114 S.W.3d at 222 (quoting Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 558 (1998), and Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 357 (6th Cir. 1993)). 7 CR-94-358 Cite as 2014 Ark. 296 Regardless of any inconsistencies in our decisions concerning the mandatory satisfaction of the three Robbins factors, what has remained consistent in these cases has been a discus 2014Indeed, we stated in Robbins that recall of our mandate is to be granted only in extraordinary circumstances as a last resort to “avoid a miscarriage of justice” or “to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” See Robbins, 353 Ark. at 563 , 114 S.W.3d at 222 (quoting Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 558 , 118 S.Ct. 1489 , 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998), and Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 357 (6th Cir.1993)). | sRegardless of any inconsistencies in our decisions concerning the mandatory satisfaction of the three Robbins factors, what has remained consistent in these cases has been a dis | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Robbins v. State
green
2 sentences2014Indeed, we stated in Robbins that recall of our mandate is to be granted only in extraordinary circumstances as a last resort to “avoid a miscarriage of justice” or “to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” See Robbins, 353 Ark. at 563 , 114 S.W.3d at 222 (quoting Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 558 (1998), and Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 357 (6th Cir. 1993)). 7 CR-94-358 Cite as 2014 Ark. 296 Regardless of any inconsistencies in our decisions concerning the mandatory satisfaction of the three Robbins factors, what has remained consistent in these cases has been a discus 2014Indeed, we stated in Robbins that recall of our mandate is to be granted only in extraordinary circumstances as a last resort to “avoid a miscarriage of justice” or “to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” See Robbins, 353 Ark. at 563 , 114 S.W.3d at 222 (quoting Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 558 (1998), and Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 357 (6th Cir. 1993)). 7 CR-94-358 Cite as 2014 Ark. 296 Regardless of any inconsistencies in our decisions concerning the mandatory satisfaction of the three Robbins factors, what has remained consistent in these cases has been a discus | 1 | 2014–2014 |