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.
6 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Moses v. Hanna's Candle Co.green2 sentences2014See McCarthy v. Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixth Div., 366 Ark. 316 , 235 S.W.3d 497 (2006) (citing Moses v. Hanna’s Candle Co., 366 Ark. 233 , 234 S.W.3d 872 (2006); Stocks v. Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc., 363 Ark. 235 , 213 S.W.3d 3 (2005)). 2014See McCarthy v. Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixth Div., 366 Ark. 316 , 235 S.W.3d 497 (2006) (citing Moses v. Hanna’s Candle Co., 366 Ark. 233 , 234 S.W.3d 872 (2006); Stocks v. Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc., 363 Ark. 235 , 213 S.W.3d 3 (2005)). | 1 | 3 |
McCarthy v. Pulaski County Circuit Courtgreen1 sentence2014See McCarthy v. Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixth Div., 366 Ark. 316 , 235 S.W.3d 497 (2006) (citing Moses v. Hanna’s Candle Co., 366 Ark. 233 , 234 S.W.3d 872 (2006); Stocks v. Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc., 363 Ark. 235 , 213 S.W.3d 3 (2005)). | 1 | 1 |
McCarthy v. PULASKI CTY CIR. CT. SIXTH DIV.green1 sentence2014See McCarthy v. Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixth Div., 366 Ark. 316 , 235 S.W.3d 497 (2006) (citing Moses v. Hanna’s Candle Co., 366 Ark. 233 , 234 S.W.3d 872 (2006); Stocks v. Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc., 363 Ark. 235 , 213 S.W.3d 3 (2005)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reynolds Metal Co. v. Circuit Court of Clark County
neutral
2 sentences2019In adopting this rule, we have explained that the Commission has vast expertise in this area and that the goals of uniformity, speed, and simplicity would best be achieved by granting the Commission the exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Act. 2013 Ark. 287 , at 4, 428 S.W.3d 506 , 508-09 (internal citations omitted). 2019In adopting this rule, we have explained that the Commission has vast expertise in this area and that the goals of uniformity, speed, and simplicity would best be achieved by granting the Commission the exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Act. 2013 Ark. 287 , at 4, 428 S.W.3d 506 , 508-09 (internal citations omitted). | 2 | 2017–2019 |
VanWagoner v. Beverly Enterprises
green
2 sentences2019In Reynolds Metal Company v. Circuit Court of Clark County , our supreme court explained the exclusivity doctrine as follows: Beginning with the decision in VanWagoner v. Beverly Enterprises , 334 Ark. 12 , 16, 970 S.W.2d 810 , 812 (1998), this court has consistently followed the rule that the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission "has exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine the facts that establish jurisdiction, unless the facts are so one-sided that the issue is no longer one of fact but one of law, such as an intentional tort." Thus, when a party to a lawsuit raises a question of 2019In Reynolds Metal Company v. Circuit Court of Clark County , our supreme court explained the exclusivity doctrine as follows: Beginning with the decision in VanWagoner v. Beverly Enterprises , 334 Ark. 12 , 16, 970 S.W.2d 810 , 812 (1998), this court has consistently followed the rule that the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission "has exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine the facts that establish jurisdiction, unless the facts are so one-sided that the issue is no longer one of fact but one of law, such as an intentional tort." Thus, when a party to a lawsuit raises a question of | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Pineda v. Manpower International, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019Reynolds , 2013 Ark. 287 , at 4, 428 S.W.3d at 509 ; Pineda v. Manpower Int'l, Inc. , 2017 Ark. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Stocks v. Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014See McCarthy v. Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixth Div., 366 Ark. 316 , 235 S.W.3d 497 (2006) (citing Moses v. Hanna’s Candle Co., 366 Ark. 233 , 234 S.W.3d 872 (2006); Stocks v. Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc., 363 Ark. 235 , 213 S.W.3d 3 (2005)). 2014See McCarthy v. Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixth Div., 366 Ark. 316 , 235 S.W.3d 497 (2006) (citing Moses v. Hanna’s Candle Co., 366 Ark. 233 , 234 S.W.3d 872 (2006); Stocks v. Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc., 363 Ark. 235 , 213 S.W.3d 3 (2005)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Curtis v. Lemna
green
1 sentence2014Miller v. Enders, 2010 Ark. 92 . 20 Cite as 2014 Ark. 377 of which forum’s law should apply was argued at the hearing before the administrative law judge (“ALJ”). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Miller v. Enders
green
2 sentences2013Miller v. Enders, 2018 Ark. 23 , 425 S.W.3d 723 . 2013Miller v. Enders, 2013 Ark. 23 , ___ S.W.3d ___. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
GALE A. ASKINS v. KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I AND SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
neutral
1 sentence2013Miller v. Enders, 2018 Ark. 23 , 425 S.W.3d 723 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.