defined test in Arkansas

6 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1870–2015 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Lacy v. Stategreen ark · 2010 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015The Court later defined the test for material evidence in the context of a Brady violation as being “whether there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would be different.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); see also Lacy v. State, 2010 Ark. 388 , 377 S.W.3d 227 . 2015The Court later defined the test for material evidence in the context of a Brady violation as being “whether there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would be different.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); see also Lacy v. State, 2010 Ark. 388 , 377 S.W.3d 227 .	2	2
Smith v. Stategreen ark · 2003 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See also Smith v. State, 354 Ark. 226, 250 , 118 S.W.3d 542, 556 (2003) (stating that prejudice can be demonstrated where there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different). 2010See also Smith v. State, 354 Ark. 226, 250 , 118 S.W.3d 542, 556 (2003) (stating that prejudice can be demonstrated where there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Strickler v. Greene green scotus · 1999 2 sentences 2015The Court later defined the test for material evidence in the context of a Brady violation as being “whether there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would be different.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); see also Lacy v. State, 2010 Ark. 388 , 377 S.W.3d 227 . 2015The Court later defined the test for material evidence in the context of a Brady violation as being “whether there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would be different.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); see also Lacy v. State, 2010 Ark. 388 , 377 S.W.3d 227 .	3	2010–2015
Harris v. Harris neutral ark · 1956 2 sentences 1963Credit Industrial Co., et al v. Blankinship, 230 Ark. 371 , 323 S. W. 2d 198 ; Harris v. Harris, 225 Ark. 958 , 286 S. W. 2d 849 . 1963Credit Industrial Co., et al v. Blankinship, 230 Ark. 371 , 323 S. W. 2d 198 ; Harris v. Harris, 225 Ark. 958 , 286 S. W. 2d 849 .	1	1963–1963
Credit Industrial Co. v. Blankinship neutral ark · 1959 2 sentences 1963Credit Industrial Co., et al v. Blankinship, 230 Ark. 371 , 323 S. W. 2d 198 ; Harris v. Harris, 225 Ark. 958 , 286 S. W. 2d 849 . 1963Credit Industrial Co., et al v. Blankinship, 230 Ark. 371 , 323 S. W. 2d 198 ; Harris v. Harris, 225 Ark. 958 , 286 S. W. 2d 849 .	1	1963–1963
Williams v. Davis green ark · 1947 2 sentences 1958As stated in Williams v. Davis, 211 Ark. 725 , 202 S. W. 2d 205 : “Appellant argues here, however, that appellees could not avail themselves of the defense of estoppel for the reason that it was not specially pleaded. 1958As stated in Williams v. Davis, 211 Ark. 725 , 202 S. W. 2d 205 : “Appellant argues here, however, that appellees could not avail themselves of the defense of estoppel for the reason that it was not specially pleaded.	1	1958–1958
Jacoway v. Denton neutral ark · 1869 1 sentence 1870In Jackoway v. Denton, ( 25 Ark. 625 ,) the court declared that a recognition of the force and effect of section fourteen, of article fifteen, of the Constitution of this State, in that case, would be in conflict with that provision of' the Constitution of the United States, which declares that “no State shall pass any law impairing tbe obligation of contracts;” bnt is that true of this case?	1	1870–1870

Where else courts name it

PA 33 (1939–2025) IL 23 (1897–2009) NY 23 (1902–2026) CA 19 (1930–2021) NJ 18 (1926–2024) TX 17 (1922–2008) OH 14 (1959–2026) AL 12 (1896–2011) LA 10 (1948–2001) MA 9 (1932–2025) KS 9 (1967–2018) MN 9 (1918–1997) MI 8 (1924–2025) CT 7 (1982–2020) NE 7 (1903–2009) IA 7 (1924–2011) WY 7 (1987–2014) IN 7 (1939–2018) MD 6 (1975–2022) NC 6 (1904–2014) AR 6 (1870–2015) KY 5 (1929–2026) TN 4 (1931–2004) WI 4 (1919–1995) OR 4 (1895–2006) MO 4 (1918–2015) AK 3 (1986–2023) MT 3 (1953–1996) FL 3 (1943–1999) ID 3 (1992–2013) CO 3 (1983–2011) WA 2 (1986–2016) AZ 2 (1985–1996) WV 2 (1982–1983) OK 2 (1930–1930)

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