correction error (Arkansas) · Go Syfert
← Arkansas issues

correction error in Arkansas

5 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1918–2010 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Lewis v. Readgreen
ark · 1846 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010Indeed, early cases interpreting the Criminal Code provision upon which Rule 3(c) is based acknowledged the desirability of accepting State appeals where it was important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law or “the correction of the error complained of will prevent a particular individual deemed guilty by the prosecuting officers from escaping from the meshes of the law.” State v. Withrow, 47 Ark. 551, 553 , 2 S.W. 184 , 184 (1886); see also State v. Graham, 1 Ark. at 433 (discussing the need for appeals in criminal cases to remedy the “great uncertainty and contrarie

11
Spires v. Comptongreen
ark · 1992 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994See generally Spires v. Compton, 310 Ark. 431 , 837 S.W.2d 459 (1992).

1994See generally Spires v. Compton, 310 Ark. 431 , 837 S.W.2d 459 (1992).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Withrow green
ark · 1886
1 sentence

2010Indeed, early cases interpreting the Criminal Code provision upon which Rule 3(c) is based acknowledged the desirability of accepting State appeals where it was important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law or “the correction of the error complained of will prevent a particular individual deemed guilty by the prosecuting officers from escaping from the meshes of the law.” State v. Withrow, 47 Ark. 551, 553 , 2 S.W. 184 , 184 (1886); see also State v. Graham, 1 Ark. at 433 (discussing the need for appeals in criminal cases to remedy the “great uncertainty and contrarie

12010–2010
Washington v. State green
ark · 1982
1 sentence

1985Washington v. State, 278 Ark. 5 , 654 S.W.2d 255 (1982).

11985–1985
Richardson v. Matthews neutral
ark · 1894
1 sentence

1918Warner v. Hess, 66 Ark. 113 ; Richardson v. Matthews, supra. But it is contended that appellee’s disability of coverture appeared in the record and that her case does not fall within the statute for the reason that the return of the sheriff on the original summons recited service on A. Bird by leaving a copy of the summons “at the usual place of abode of the defendant, A. Bird, with Mrs. Maggie Bird, the wife and a member of the family of said A. Bird, and over the age of 15 years.” Even if we could treat the return of the sheriff as a part of the record, within the meaning of the statute here

11918–1918
Warner v. Hess green
ark · 1899
1 sentence

1918Warner v. Hess, 66 Ark. 113 ; Richardson v. Matthews, supra. But it is contended that appellee’s disability of coverture appeared in the record and that her case does not fall within the statute for the reason that the return of the sheriff on the original summons recited service on A. Bird by leaving a copy of the summons “at the usual place of abode of the defendant, A. Bird, with Mrs. Maggie Bird, the wife and a member of the family of said A. Bird, and over the age of 15 years.” Even if we could treat the return of the sheriff as a part of the record, within the meaning of the statute here

11918–1918
Little Rock Railway & Electric Co. v. Doyle neutral
ark · 1906
1 sentence

1918Little Rock Railway, etc., Co. v. Doyle, 79 Ark. 378 .

11918–1918

Where else courts name it

UT 368 (1896–2025) MO 30 (1874–2025) NY 28 (1871–2022) TN 26 (1926–2026) AL 24 (1847–1993) CA 21 (1864–2025) FL 16 (1939–2021) PA 16 (1909–2026) IL 16 (1903–2005) CT 14 (1925–2026) IN 14 (1897–2024) NJ 14 (1951–2013) OR 13 (1908–2025) MA 12 (1869–2020) GA 12 (1931–2026) VA 12 (1838–2018) TX 12 (1921–2026) MD 11 (1911–2017) KY 9 (1914–2021) NE 8 (1917–2009) OH 8 (1924–2026) LA 7 (1970–2025) WA 7 (1930–2025) MI 7 (1908–2021) IA 7 (1880–2022) ND 7 (1915–2020) WV 6 (1900–2022) OK 6 (1905–1983) AR 5 (1918–2010) VT 5 (1860–1966) ME 5 (1949–2023) AZ 4 (1912–2021) CO 4 (1924–1977) KS 4 (1924–1995) ID 4 (1922–2006) MT 4 (1903–1999) HI 4 (1909–2003) DE 3 (1974–2015) MN 3 (2000–2025) SC 3 (1938–2005) NM 3 (2022–2023) WI 3 (1938–1994) NC 3 (1880–1987) SD 2 (2022–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check