6 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ladwig v. Davisgreen2 sentences2012Costillo v. Goodson, 288 Ark. 639 , 707 S.W.2d 776 (1986); see also Ladwig v. Davis, 340 Ark. 415 , 10 S.W.3d 461 (2000). 2012Costillo v. Goodson, 288 Ark. 639 , 707 S.W.2d 776 (1986); see also Ladwig v. Davis, 340 Ark. 415 , 10 S.W.3d 461 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Butler v. State
green
2 sentences2025Butler v. State, 367 Ark. 318 , 239 S.W.3d 514 (2006). 2025Butler v. State, 367 Ark. 318 , 239 S.W.3d 514 (2006). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
GARY ROBINSON v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
green
1 sentence2019Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(e) provides that “before the court acts upon a petition filed under this rule, the petition may be amended with leave of the court.” Recently, in a footnote in Robinson v. State, 2018 Ark. 406 , at 2 n. 1, this court held that “Rule 37.2(e) provides that the petition may be amended before it is acted on if the court grants permission to file an amended petition.” Butler neither overrides the requirement that the court grant leave nor divests the court of discretion to grant leave. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Travis v. State
green
2 sentences2018Travis , 286 Ark. 26 , 688 S.W.2d 935 . 2018Travis , 286 Ark. 26 , 688 S.W.2d 935 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re Crim. Practice Comm
green
1 sentence2015For purposes of subsection (c) of this rule, a petition filed pro se by a person confined in a correctional or detention facility that is not timely under the provisions of subsection (c) of this rule shall be deemed filed on the date of its deposit in the facility’s legal mail system if the following conditions are satisfied: (i) on the date the petition is deposited in the mail, the petitioner is confined in a state correctional facility, a federal correctional facility, or a regional or county detention facility that maintains a system designed for legal mail; and (ii) the petition is filed | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In re Rule of App. P.-Crim.2 & Crim P. 37.2
green
2 sentences2015For purposes of subsection (c) of this rule, a petition filed pro se by a person confined in a correctional or detention facility that is not timely under the provisions of subsection (c) of this rule shall be deemed filed on the date of its deposit in the facility’s legal mail system if the following conditions are satisfied: (i) on the date the petition is deposited in the mail, the petitioner is confined in a state correctional facility, a federal correctional facility, or a regional or county detention facility 5 Cite as 2015 Ark. 296 that maintains a system designed for legal mail; and (i 2015For purposes of subsection (c) of this rule, a petition filed pro se by a person confined in a correctional or detention facility that is not timely under the provisions of subsection (c) of this rule shall be deemed filed on the date of its deposit in the facility’s legal mail system if the following conditions are satisfied: (i) on the date the petition is deposited in the mail, the petitioner is confined in a state correctional facility, a federal correctional facility, or a regional or county detention facility 5 Cite as 2015 Ark. 296 that maintains a system designed for legal mail; and (i | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Costillo v. Goodson
neutral
2 sentences2012Costillo v. Goodson, 288 Ark. 639 , 707 S.W.2d 776 (1986); see also Ladwig v. Davis, 340 Ark. 415 , 10 S.W.3d 461 (2000). 2012Costillo v. Goodson, 288 Ark. 639 , 707 S.W.2d 776 (1986); see also Ladwig v. Davis, 340 Ark. 415 , 10 S.W.3d 461 (2000). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.