44 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
McClinton v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Rayfield, 2020 Ark. 40 , 592 S.W.3d 237 ; see also McClinton v. State, 2017 Ark. 360 , 533 S.W.3d 578 . 2025Rayfield, 2020 Ark. 40 , 592 S.W.3d 237 ; see also McClinton v. State, 2017 Ark. 360 , 533 S.W.3d 578 . | 3 | 3 |
Raymond v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Raymond v. State, 354 Ark. 157 , 118 S.W.3d 567 (2003). 2026See Raymond v. State, 354 Ark. 157 , 118 S.W.3d 567 (2003). | 2 | 2 |
Carter v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., Carter v. State, 2010 Ark. 293 , 367 S.W.3d 544 ; Hillman v. State, 2019 Ark. 2023See, e.g., Carter v. State, 2010 Ark. 293 , 367 S.W.3d 544 ; Hillman v. State, 2019 Ark. | 2 | 2 |
Cameron Halliburton v. State of Arkansasgreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., Halliburton, 2020 Ark. 101, at 10 , 594 S.W.3d at 863 . 2022See, e.g., Halliburton, 2020 Ark. 101, at 10 , 594 S.W.3d at 863 . | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Hickman v. State, 372 Ark. 438 , 277 S.W.3d 217 (2008); Wilson v. State, 365 Ark. 664 , 232 S.W.3d 455 (2006). 2008See Hickman v. State, 372 Ark. 438 , 277 S.W.3d 217 (2008); Wilson v. State, 365 Ark. 664 , 232 S.W.3d 455 (2006). | 1 | 3 |
Walley v. Stategreen2 sentences2006In Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586 , 112 S.W.3d 349 (2003), our supreme court explained how an appellate review is conducted in connection with a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to possession when two or more persons occupy the residence where the contraband was found: Under our law, it is clear that the State need not prove that the accused physically possessed the contraband in order to sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance if the location of the contraband was such that it could be said to be under the dominion and control of the accused, that is, constructively 2006In Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586 , 112 S.W.3d 349 (2003), our supreme court explained how an appellate review is conducted in connection with a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to possession when two or more persons occupy the residence where the contraband was found: Under our law, it is clear that the State need not prove that the accused physically possessed the contraband in order to sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance if the location of the contraband was such that it could be said to be under the dominion and control of the accused, that is, constructively | 1 | 3 |
Pinell v. Stategreen2 sentences2010With regard to preserving a sufficiency challenge for appellate review, this court has stated that [t]o preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge on appeal, a clear and specific motion for a directed verdict must be made to the trial court.... [T]he reasoning behind this rule is “that when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the circuit court can either grant the motion, or, if justice requires, allow |sthe State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof.” Elkins v. State, 374 Ark. 399, 402 , 288 S.W.3d 570, 573 (2008) (quoting Pinell v. State, 364 Ark. 2010With regard to preserving a sufficiency challenge for appellate review, this court has stated that [t]o preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge on appeal, a clear and specific motion for a directed verdict must be made to the trial court.... [T]he reasoning behind this rule is “that when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the circuit court can either grant the motion, or, if justice requires, allow |sthe State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof.” Elkins v. State, 374 Ark. 399, 402 , 288 S.W.3d 570, 573 (2008) (quoting Pinell v. State, 364 Ark. | 1 | 2 |
McClendon v. Stategreen2 sentences2023As explained by the majority, on a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the conviction.” McClendon v. State, 2019 Ark. 88, at 3 , 570 S.W.3d 450, 452 (emphasis added). 2023As explained by the majority, on a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the conviction.” McClendon v. State, 2019 Ark. 88, at 3 , 570 S.W.3d 450, 452 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Bell v. State, 371 Ark. 375 , 266 S.W.3d 696 (2007). 2015See Bell v. State, 371 Ark. 375 , 266 S.W.3d 696 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Clark v. State, 358 Ark. 469, 475-76 , 192 S.W.3d 248, 252 (2004). 2012Clark v. State, 358 Ark. 469, 475-76 , 192 S.W.3d 248, 252 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Boren v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Boren v. State, 297 Ark. 220 , 761 S.W.2d 885 (1988). 2010See Boren v. State, 297 Ark. 220 , 761 S.W.2d 885 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Raymond v. State, 354 Ark. 157 , 118 S.W.3d 567 (2008) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument not preserved because the motion for directed verdict was not made prior to closing argument); see also State v. Holmes, 347 Ark. 689 , 66 S.W.3d 640 (2002). 2010See, e.g., Raymond v. State, 354 Ark. 157 , 118 S.W.3d 567 (2008) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument not preserved because the motion for directed verdict was not made prior to closing argument); see also State v. Holmes, 347 Ark. 689 , 66 S.W.3d 640 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Elkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2010With regard to preserving a sufficiency challenge for appellate review, this court has stated that [t]o preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge on appeal, a clear and specific motion for a directed verdict must be made to the trial court.... [T]he reasoning behind this rule is “that when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the circuit court can either grant the motion, or, if justice requires, allow |sthe State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof.” Elkins v. State, 374 Ark. 399, 402 , 288 S.W.3d 570, 573 (2008) (quoting Pinell v. State, 364 Ark. 2010With regard to preserving a sufficiency challenge for appellate review, this court has stated that [t]o preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge on appeal, a clear and specific motion for a directed verdict must be made to the trial court.... [T]he reasoning behind this rule is “that when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the circuit court can either grant the motion, or, if justice requires, allow |sthe State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof.” Elkins v. State, 374 Ark. 399, 402 , 288 S.W.3d 570, 573 (2008) (quoting Pinell v. State, 364 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Brown v. State, 347 Ark. 308, 315 , 65 S.W.3d 394, 398 (2001); Walker v. State, 318 Ark. 107, 108 , 883 S.W.2d, 831, 832 (1994). 2009See, e.g., Brown v. State, 347 Ark. 308, 315 , 65 S.W.3d 394, 398 (2001); Walker v. State, 318 Ark. 107, 108 , 883 S.W.2d, 831, 832 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Brown v. State, 347 Ark. 308, 315 , 65 S.W.3d 394, 398 (2001); Walker v. State, 318 Ark. 107, 108 , 883 S.W.2d, 831, 832 (1994). 2009See, e.g., Brown v. State, 347 Ark. 308, 315 , 65 S.W.3d 394, 398 (2001); Walker v. State, 318 Ark. 107, 108 , 883 S.W.2d, 831, 832 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Rounsaville v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Rounsaville v. State, 372 Ark. 252 , 273 S.W.3d 486 (2008); Phillips v. State, 361 Ark. 1 , 203 S.W.3d 630 (2005). 2009See, e.g., Rounsaville v. State, 372 Ark. 252 , 273 S.W.3d 486 (2008); Phillips v. State, 361 Ark. 1 , 203 S.W.3d 630 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Hickman v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Hickman v. State, 372 Ark. 438 , 277 S.W.3d 217 (2008); Wilson v. State, 365 Ark. 664 , 232 S.W.3d 455 (2006). 2008See Hickman v. State, 372 Ark. 438 , 277 S.W.3d 217 (2008); Wilson v. State, 365 Ark. 664 , 232 S.W.3d 455 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Isom v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Isom v. State, 356 Ark. 156 , 148 S.W.3d 257 (2004). 2006See Isom v. State, 356 Ark. 156 , 148 S.W.3d 257 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cook v. State
green
2 sentences2020Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, at 5 , 588 S.W.3d 1 , 4–5 (citing Cook v. State, 350 Ark. 398 , 86 S.W.3d 916 (2002)). 2020Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, at 5 , 588 S.W.3d 1 , 4–5 (citing Cook v. State, 350 Ark. 398 , 86 S.W.3d 916 (2002)). | 8 | 2004–2020 |
Travis Price v. State of Arkansas
green
2 sentences2025Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323 , 588 S.W.3d 1 . 2021Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323 , 588 S.W.3d 1 . | 3 | 2020–2025 |
Purifoy v. State
green
2 sentences2016Purifoy v. State, 307 Ark. 482 , 822 S.W.2d 374 (1991). 2016Purifoy v. State, 307 Ark. 482 , 822 S.W.2d 374 (1991). | 3 | 2002–2016 |
Demarcus Lee Rayfield v. State of Arkansas
neutral
2 sentences2025Rayfield, 2020 Ark. 40 , 592 S.W.3d 237 ; see also McClinton v. State, 2017 Ark. 360 , 533 S.W.3d 578 . 2025Rayfield, 2020 Ark. 40 , 592 S.W.3d 237 ; see also McClinton v. State, 2017 Ark. 360 , 533 S.W.3d 578 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hillman v. State
green
1 sentence2023See, e.g., Carter v. State, 2010 Ark. 293 , 367 S.W.3d 544 ; Hillman v. State, 2019 Ark. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Eugene Issac Pitts v. State of Arkansas
green
2 sentences2022We reiterated this standard in Pitts v. State, 2020 Ark. 7 , at 6–7, 591 S.W.3d 786, 791 , when we stated that the petitioner “was required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that, had the DOJ’s repudiation been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” In its order denying Strawhacker’s petition, the trial court found that Malone’s testimony was “not material to the State’s case” because “without the testimony, there remained sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of guilt.” But the materiality inquiry is not a sufficiency-of-the-eviden 2022We reiterated this standard in Pitts v. State, 2020 Ark. 7 , at 6–7, 591 S.W.3d 786, 791 , when we stated that the petitioner “was required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that, had the DOJ’s repudiation been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” In its order denying Strawhacker’s petition, the trial court found that Malone’s testimony was “not material to the State’s case” because “without the testimony, there remained sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of guilt.” But the materiality inquiry is not a sufficiency-of-the-eviden | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Arendall v. State
green
2 sentences2020Although physical force refers to any bodily impact, restraint, or confinement, as explained in greater 22 detail in the sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis above, the test for physical force is “whether the act was against the will of the party upon whom the act was committed.” Arendall, 2010 Ark. 2020App. 358, at 10 , 377 S.W.3d at 411 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Means v. State
green
1 sentence2018Means v. State , 2015 Ark. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Williamson v. State
green
2 sentences2017Williamson v. State, 2009 Ark. 568 , 350 S.W.3d 787 (citing Ark. 2017Williamson v. State, 2009 Ark. 568 , 350 S.W.3d 787 (citing Ark. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Etoch v. State
green
2 sentences2014Appellant contends in his last point on appeal that the circuit court erred in finding him in criminal contempt and appears to be challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. 2 | 10However, the State contends that appellant failed to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim because appellant failed to move for dismissal at the close of evidence in compliance with Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 38.1(b) as stated in Etoch v. State, 343 Ark. 361 , 37 S.W.3d 186 (2001). 2014Appellant contends in his last point on appeal that the circuit court erred in finding him in criminal contempt and appears to be challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. 2 | 10However, the State contends that appellant failed to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim because appellant failed to move for dismissal at the close of evidence in compliance with Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 38.1(b) as stated in Etoch v. State, 343 Ark. 361 , 37 S.W.3d 186 (2001). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Phillips v. State
green
2 sentences2009See, e.g., Rounsaville v. State, 372 Ark. 252 , 273 S.W.3d 486 (2008); Phillips v. State, 361 Ark. 1 , 203 S.W.3d 630 (2005). 2009See, e.g., Rounsaville v. State, 372 Ark. 252 , 273 S.W.3d 486 (2008); Phillips v. State, 361 Ark. 1 , 203 S.W.3d 630 (2005). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Brunson v. State
green
2 sentences2007Brunson v. State, 368 Ark. 313 , 245 S.W.3d 132 (2006). 2007Brunson v. State, 368 Ark. 313 , 245 S.W.3d 132 (2006). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tucker green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Crossley v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Heard v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.
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.