5 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Waller v. Kelley
green
1 sentence2016Although I concur with the majority regarding the disposition of the case, I respectfully disagree with the reasoning. 9 Cite as 2016 Ark. 252 The majority has held the complaint fails to state a factual basis for a claim under the AWBA and thus the court need not address whether the General Assembly has the legal authority to waive the State’s sovereign immunity. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Carter v. Norris
green
2 sentences2015Feb. 19, 2004) (unpublished per curiam) (affirming circuit court’s denial of petition for further scientific testing of evidence collected at the crime scene because the evidence either no longer existed or could not be located); Carter v. Norris, 367 Ark. 360 , 240 S.W.3d 124 (2006) (per curiam) (affirming circuit court’s denial of petition for habeas corpus relief); Carter v. State, 2010 Ark. 29 (per curiam) (affirming circuit court’s denial of successive petition for further scientific testing of hairs collected at the crime scene because Carter did not offer a factual basis for his claim t 2015Feb. 19, 2004) (unpublished per curiam) (affirming circuit court’s denial of petition for further scientific testing of evidence collected at the crime scene because the evidence either no longer existed or could not be located); Carter v. Norris, 367 Ark. 360 , 240 S.W.3d 124 (2006) (per curiam) (affirming circuit court’s denial of petition for habeas corpus relief); Carter v. State, 2010 Ark. 29 (per curiam) (affirming circuit court’s denial of successive petition for further scientific testing of hairs collected at the crime scene because Carter did not offer a factual basis for his claim t | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Carter v. State
green
1 sentence2015Feb. 19, 2004) (unpublished per curiam) (affirming circuit court’s denial of petition for further scientific testing of evidence collected at the crime scene because the evidence either no longer existed or could not be located); Carter v. Norris, 367 Ark. 360 , 240 S.W.3d 124 (2006) (per curiam) (affirming circuit court’s denial of petition for habeas corpus relief); Carter v. State, 2010 Ark. 29 (per curiam) (affirming circuit court’s denial of successive petition for further scientific testing of hairs collected at the crime scene because Carter did not offer a factual basis for his claim t | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Parks v. State
green
2 sentences2006Parks, 301 Ark. at 515 , 785 S.W.2d at 215 (citing Furr). 2006Parks, 301 Ark. at 515 , 785 S.W.2d at 215 (citing Furr). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Snelgrove v. State
green
2 sentences1988In Snelgrove v. State, 292 Ark. 116 , 728 S.W.2d 497 (1987), we considered the standard which a trial court must use in order to establish a factual basis for a plea of nolo contendere. 1988In Snelgrove v. State, 292 Ark. 116 , 728 S.W.2d 497 (1987), we considered the standard which a trial court must use in order to establish a factual basis for a plea of nolo contendere. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Richard v. State
green
2 sentences1987Richard v. State, 286 Ark. 410 , 691 S.W.2d 872 (1985). 1987Richard v. State, 286 Ark. 410 , 691 S.W.2d 872 (1985). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.