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 1983–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Rossgreen1 sentence1999The Court concluded its analysis by stating, "If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search." Ross , at 825, 102 S.Ct. 2157. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Government Service Automation, Inc. v. Faulkner County
green
1 sentence2009The court summarized the opt-out provision at issue in its case as providing that "each year the County, subject to the notice requirements of the contract is free to terminate the agreement with GSA for any reason except to simply replace a satisfactorily performing GSA with another computer company." Id. at 343 . 3 The court concluded its analysis by remarking: Because the County is only "on the hook" for one year at a time, the Court finds that the proper dollar figure to use when making the "obligation vs. revenue" comparison is the annual fee under the contract. . . . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Lake v. Tatum
green
2 sentences2009In other words, if that amount could have been paid for with the revenues received during the first year of the contract, the agreement does not run afoul of Article 12 , Section 4 of the Arkansas Constitution. 4 Despite the Arkansas Supreme Court's sometimes confusing pronouncements on this issue, I subscribe to the court's straightforward declaration that it is the *Page 9 intention of Article 12, § 4 ". . . to make the revenue of each year pay the indebtedness incurred during that year , and that the revenue of a subsequent year should not be applied to pay the liability of a past fiscal ye 2009In other words, if that amount could have been paid for with the revenues received during the first year of the contract, the agreement does not run afoul of Article 12 , Section 4 of the Arkansas Constitution. 4 Despite the Arkansas Supreme Court's sometimes confusing pronouncements on this issue, I subscribe to the court's straightforward declaration that it is the *Page 9 intention of Article 12, § 4 ". . . to make the revenue of each year pay the indebtedness incurred during that year , and that the revenue of a subsequent year should not be applied to pay the liability of a past fiscal ye | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Goforth v. Smith
green
2 sentences2003The doctrine of laches was laid out in Goforth v. Smith, 338 Ark. 65 , 991 S.W.2d 579 (1999): The doctrine of laches is based on a number of equitable principles that are premised on some detrimental change in position made in reliance upon the action or inaction of the other party. 2003The doctrine of laches was laid out in Goforth v. Smith, 338 Ark. 65 , 991 S.W.2d 579 (1999): The doctrine of laches is based on a number of equitable principles that are premised on some detrimental change in position made in reliance upon the action or inaction of the other party. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Green v. State
green
2 sentences2003Similarly, in Green, 343 Ark. 244 , 33 S.W.3d 485 , this court concluded that the doctrine of law of the case did not apply where, in the previous appeal, this court held that the appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s comment on a witness’s credibility was procedurally barred because the appellant failed to raise an objection at trial. 2003Similarly, in Green, 343 Ark. 244 , 33 S.W.3d 485 , this court concluded that the doctrine of law of the case did not apply where, in the previous appeal, this court held that the appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s comment on a witness’s credibility was procedurally barred because the appellant failed to raise an objection at trial. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
California v. Acevedo
green
1 sentence1999The U.S. Supreme Court elaborated further in Acevedo, supra. In that case, the police observed Acevedo leaving an apartment in which the police knew contained marijuana. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
green
2 sentences1983Gertz, supra at p. 349 , 94 S.Ct. at 3011 . 1983Gertz, supra at p. 349 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.