positive test in Arkansas

2008In George's Inc. v. Director, 50 Ark.

2008In George’s Inc. v. Director, 50 Ark.

2018E.g. , Prock , supra ; Hickey v. Gardisser Constr. , 2009 Ark.

2016Appellant responded on February 5, 2015, denying all allegations and requests by appellee and 1 Huffman v. Fisher, 337 Ark. 58 , 987 S.W.2d 269 (1999).

2016Appellant responded on February 5, 2015, denying all allegations and requests by appellee and 1 Huffman v. Fisher, 337 Ark. 58 , 987 S.W.2d 269 (1999).

2016Citing Justice Imber’s concurring opinion in Otis v. State, 355 Ark. 590 , 142 S.W.3d 615 (2004), Andrew submits that these changes to the Juvenile Code make it clear that the General Assembly expressed a view that the juvenile court system is appropriate even for serious offenses, and that the blended sentencing options available through EJJ require the courts to look more favorably upon rehabilitation as an option, |9In arguing that the trial court erred in denying the transfer in the instant case, Andrew takes issue with many of the trial court’s particular findings, and he also contends th

2016Citing Justice Imber’s concurring opinion in Otis v. State, 355 Ark. 590 , 142 S.W.3d 615 (2004), Andrew submits that these changes to the Juvenile Code make it clear that the General Assembly expressed a view that the juvenile court system is appropriate even for serious offenses, and that the blended sentencing options available through EJJ require the courts to look more favorably upon rehabilitation as an option, |9In arguing that the trial court erred in denying the transfer in the instant case, Andrew takes issue with many of the trial court’s particular findings, and he also contends th

2008In Grace Drilling Co. v. Director of Labor, 31 Ark.App. 81 , 790 S.W.2d 907 (1990), we held that where the claimant's positive test result was sufficient to satisfy that portion of the company's safety policy prohibiting any detectable level of drugs in the body, this constituted misconduct that disqualified him from benefits, as it represented a deliberate violation of the employer's rules and willful and wanton disregard of the standard of behavior that the employer had a right to expect of its employee.

2008App. 81 , 790 S.W.2d 907 (1990), we held that where the claimant’s positive test result was sufficient to satisfy that portion of the company’s safety policy prohibiting any detectable level of drugs in the body, this constituted misconduct that disqualified him from benefits, as it represented a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules and willful and wanton disregard of the standard of behavior that the employer had a right to expect of its employee.

1887Some precedents to the contrary may be found in some of of our States, originating in hard cases; but they are generally overruled by the same tribunals from which they emanated, on experience of the evil consequences flowing from a relaxation of the rule.” Martin v. Cole, 104 U. S., 30 .