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.
5 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stephanie Potter Barrett v. John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Stategreen2 sentences2020Id. at 4, 593 S.W.3d at 5 (citing Ark. 2020Id. at 4, 593 S.W.3d at 5 (citing Ark. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Poff v. Brown
green
2 sentences2014Although Rule 8(c) lists a number of affirmative defenses, "the list is not exhaustive and includes 'any matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.'" Id., 188 S.W.3d at 622 (quoting Ark. 2014Although Rule 8(c) lists a number of affirmative defenses, “the list is not exhaustive and includes ‘any matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.’ ” Id., 188 S.W.3d at 622 (quoting Ark. | 2 | 2009–2014 |
Seth v. St. Edward Mercy Medical Center
green
1 sentence2020Id., 593 S.W.3d at 5 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Felton v. Rebsamen Medical Center, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010In Felton, this court concluded that charitable immunity falls into “the catch-all provision of Rule 8(c), as it is ‘any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense,’ ” and as such, the defense “must be specifically pled to be considered by the circuit court.” Felton, 373 Ark. at 480 , 284 S.W.3d at 492 (citing Ark. 2010In Felton, this court concluded that charitable immunity falls into “the catch-all provision of Rule 8(c), as it is ‘any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense,’ ” and as such, the defense “must be specifically pled to be considered by the circuit court.” Felton, 373 Ark. at 480 , 284 S.W.3d at 492 (citing Ark. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Briarwood Apartments v. Lieblong
green
2 sentences1988P. 8(c), which provides, in pertinent part: In responding to a complaint, counterclaim, crossclaim or third party claim, a party shall set forth affirmatively . . . set-off. . . and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. [Emphasis added.] Appellees argue, however, that even if the appellants’ claim could otherwise be used as a setoff to the appellees’ claim, it cannot be used for that purpose in this case because of lachesl Appellees rely on the principles summarized in Briarwood Apartments v. Lieblong, 12 Ark. 1988App. 94 , 671 S.W.2d 207 (1984), as follows: The doctrine of laches is based on a number of equitable principles, and here it is based on the assumptions that the party to whom laches is imputed has knowledge of his rights and an opportunity to assert them, that by reason of his delay the adverse party has good reason to believe those rights are worthless [or] have been abandoned, and that because of a change of conditions or relations during this delay it would be unjust to the latter to permit him to assert them. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.