Clark rule (Arkansas) · Go Syfert
← Arkansas issues

Clark rule in Arkansas

6 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 3 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Ortega v. Stategreen
ark · 2017 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021See Ortega v. State, 2017 Ark. 365 , 533 S.W.3d 68 (stating that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a direct attack on the judgment and is not cognizable in postconviction proceedings).

2021See Ortega v. State, 2017 Ark. 365 , 533 S.W.3d 68 (stating that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a direct attack on the judgment and is not cognizable in postconviction proceedings).

11
McArthur v. Stategreen
ark · 2019 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020See McArthur v. State, 2019 Ark. 220, at 3 , 577 S.W.3d 385, 388 .

2020See McArthur v. State, 2019 Ark. 220, at 3 , 577 S.W.3d 385, 388 .

11
Bennett v. N.A.A.C.P.green
ark · 1963 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003In Bennett v. NAACP, 236 Ark. 750, 755 , 370 S.W.2d 79, 82 (1963), this court stated, "Our form of government guarantees to all of us the right of free and uninhibited access to the judiciary, and this certainly implies that we must not be so fearful of every day and common acts that this access to the judiciary is actually fettered because of fear." Further, Article 2, ?4, of the Arkansas Constitution states: The right of the people peaceable to assemble to consult for the common good, and to petition, by address or remonstrance, the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abrid

2003In Bennett v. NAACP, 236 Ark. 750, 755 , 370 S.W.2d 79, 82 (1963), this court stated, "Our form of government guarantees to all of us the right of free and uninhibited access to the judiciary, and this certainly implies that we must not be so fearful of every day and common acts that this access to the judiciary is actually fettered because of fear." Further, Article 2, ?4, of the Arkansas Constitution states: The right of the people peaceable to assemble to consult for the common good, and to petition, by address or remonstrance, the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abrid

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Dunkin v. Citizens Bank of Jonesboro green
ark · 1987
2 sentences

2026That order provides: 1 Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 33.3(b)(3) provides that the party upon whom interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers or objections within thirty days after the service of the interrogatories. 2 In Dunkin v. Citizens Bank of Jonesboro, 291 Ark. 588 , 727 S.W.2d 138 (1987), the supreme court stated that failure to object to a discovery request within the time fixed by the applicable discovery rule acts as a waiver of all available objections, even if the objection is that the information sought is privileged.

2026That order provides: 1 Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 33.3(b)(3) provides that the party upon whom interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers or objections within thirty days after the service of the interrogatories. 2 In Dunkin v. Citizens Bank of Jonesboro, 291 Ark. 588 , 727 S.W.2d 138 (1987), the supreme court stated that failure to object to a discovery request within the time fixed by the applicable discovery rule acts as a waiver of all available objections, even if the objection is that the information sought is privileged.

12026–2026
Christopher Segerstrom v. State of Arkansas neutral
ark · 2024
2 sentences

2025Segerstrom v. State, 2024 Ark. 130, at 8 , 696 S.W.3d 799, 804 .

2025Segerstrom v. State, 2024 Ark. 130, at 8 , 696 S.W.3d 799, 804 .

12025–2025
Thomas v. State green
haw · 1993
2 sentences

1994Thomas v. State, 312 Ark. 158 , 847 S.W.2d 695 (1993).

1994Thomas v. State, 312 Ark. 158 , 847 S.W.2d 695 (1993).

11994–1994

Where else courts name it

CA 198 (1956–2026) TX 32 (1989–2026) OH 32 (1978–2025) GA 24 (1977–2026) WA 19 (1977–2026) FL 14 (1991–2026) MS 14 (1984–2025) OR 11 (1988–2008) MT 11 (1979–2021) IA 9 (1991–2025) MO 8 (1982–2018) AL 7 (1918–2009) WI 7 (1979–2024) LA 7 (1983–2019) MI 7 (1967–2017) IL 7 (1997–2026) MD 7 (2007–2025) AR 6 (1994–2026) IN 5 (1994–2017) NY 5 (1979–2025) TN 4 (1998–2025) DE 4 (1969–2025) PA 4 (1981–2020) CO 4 (2004–2026) KS 4 (2014–2025) RI 3 (1976–1994) KY 3 (1933–2010) NM 3 (1989–2021) ME 3 (2008–2018) VA 3 (2011–2024) NC 3 (2020–2022) MN 2 (1996–2014) SC 2 (2016–2021) SD 2 (1993–2004) HI 2 (1996–1997) UT 2 (1995–1998) ID 2 (2008–2024) AZ 2 (2020–2021) NV 2 (1993–2014) AK 2 (1984–1992) MA 2 (1988–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check