copy warning in Arkansas

2016If a defendant or other interested person is known to the party seeking judgment or to his or her attorney, the affidavit shall also state that 60 days have elapsed since a letter enclosing a copy of the warning order and the complaint was mailed to the defendant or other interested person. 8 Cite as 2016 Ark. 29 (4) Service as Directed by Court Order.

2010Further, in Yarbrough v. State, 370 Ark. 31 , 257 S.W.3d 50 (2007), our supreme court seems to place some weight on the fact that the officer had not returned appellant’s identification papers and had not given him a copy of the warning in determining whether the traffic stop was completed.

2010Further, in Yarbrough v. State, 370 Ark. 31 , 257 S.W.3d 50 (2007), our supreme court seems to place some weight on the fact that the officer had not returned appellant’s identification papers and had not given him a copy of the warning in determining whether the traffic stop was completed.

2001As you have noted, the issue of the release of test results is governed by the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision in Young v. Rice, 208 Ark. 593 , 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).

1947Typical of these is the case of Grimes as Ad. v. Booth, 19 Ark. 224 , where the administrator complained that the requirement that a copy of the claim be delivered to him had not been met.

1931The court gave, over the objection of appellant, an instruction on the possession of recently stolen property, reading as follows: “You are instructed that the possession' of property recently stolen, without reasonable explanation of that possession, is evidence which goes to you for your consideration under all the circumstances of the case, to be weighed as tending to show the guilt of the one in whose hands such property is found, but such evidence alone does not imperatively impose upon you the duty of convicting, even though it be not rebutted. ’ ’ This appears to be a substantial copy o

1931The court gave, over the objection of appellant, an instruction on the possession of recently stolen property, reading as follows: “You are instructed that the possession' of property recently stolen, without reasonable explanation of that possession, is evidence which goes to you for your consideration under all the circumstances of the case, to be weighed as tending to show the guilt of the one in whose hands such property is found, but such evidence alone does not imperatively impose upon you the duty of convicting, even though it be not rebutted. ’ ’ This appears to be a substantial copy o

1924Instruction No. 3y2 is substantially a copy of an instruction (No. 9) the granting of which was held not, to be prejudicial error in the case of Busch v. Brewer, 136 Ark. 246 -254.