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 1 courts 1924–2010 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.
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davenport v. Lee
green
2 sentences2007Simply put, “this court expects the members of the bar to fulfill their professional responsibilities, while still maintaining the highest standards of ethical conduct.” Davenport, 349 Ark. at 115 , 76 S.W.3d at 266 . 2007Simply put, “this court expects the members of the bar to fulfill their professional responsibilities, while still maintaining the highest standards of ethical conduct.” Davenport, 349 Ark. at 115 , 76 S.W.3d at 266 . | 2 | 2007–2010 |
Barnett v. Howard
green
2 sentences2006In addition, this court has recognized that “it is customary for trial judges to rely upon the members of the bar to prepare judgments, orders and decrees in accordance with the court’s instructions.” Barnett v. Howard, 363 Ark. 150 , 211 S.W.3d 490 (2005). 2006In addition, this court has recognized that “it is customary for trial judges to rely upon the members of the bar to prepare judgments, orders and decrees in accordance with the court’s instructions.” Barnett v. Howard, 363 Ark. 150 , 211 S.W.3d 490 (2005). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Shelton v. State
green
2 sentences1976That court stated that “the primary responsibility for the ascertainment and avoidance of conflict situations must lie with the members of the bar,’’and that “it is incumbent upon the defendants to demonstrate, with a reasonable degree of specificity, that a conflict of interests actually existed at trial.” Likewise, in State v. Jeffrey, 515 P. 2d 364 , the Montana Supreme Court refused to adopt the Lollar rule, adhering instead to the majority requirement “that there be a showing of a conflict of interest to the prejudice of the accused, and that this conflict must be more than a mere conject 1976That court stated that “the primary responsibility for the ascertainment and avoidance of conflict situations must lie with the members of the bar,’’and that “it is incumbent upon the defendants to demonstrate, with a reasonable degree of specificity, that a conflict of interests actually existed at trial.” Likewise, in State v. Jeffrey, 515 P. 2d 364 , the Montana Supreme Court refused to adopt the Lollar rule, adhering instead to the majority requirement “that there be a showing of a conflict of interest to the prejudice of the accused, and that this conflict must be more than a mere conject | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Jeffrey
green
2 sentences1976That court stated that "the primary responsibility for the ascertainment and avoidance of conflict situations must lie with the members of the bar," and that "it is incumbent upon the defendants to demonstrate, with a reasonable degree of specificity, that a conflict of interests actually existed at trial." Likewise, in State v. Jeffrey, 163 Mont. 92 , 515 P.2d 364 , the Montana Supreme Court refused to adopt the Lollar rule, adhering instead to the majority requirement "that there be a showing of a conflict of interest to the prejudice of the accused, and that this conflict must be more than 1976That court stated that “the primary responsibility for the ascertainment and avoidance of conflict situations must lie with the members of the bar,’’and that “it is incumbent upon the defendants to demonstrate, with a reasonable degree of specificity, that a conflict of interests actually existed at trial.” Likewise, in State v. Jeffrey, 515 P. 2d 364 , the Montana Supreme Court refused to adopt the Lollar rule, adhering instead to the majority requirement “that there be a showing of a conflict of interest to the prejudice of the accused, and that this conflict must be more than a mere conject | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Dansby v. Beard
green
1 sentence1924Dansby v. Beard, 39 Ark. 254 ; Gaither v. Wasson, 42 Ark. 126 ; Wall v. Looney, 52 Ark. 113 ; Arkadelphia Lbr. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Gaither v. Wasson
neutral
1 sentence1924Dansby v. Beard, 39 Ark. 254 ; Gaither v. Wasson, 42 Ark. 126 ; Wall v. Looney, 52 Ark. 113 ; Arkadelphia Lbr. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Wall v. Looney
green
1 sentence1924Dansby v. Beard, 39 Ark. 254 ; Gaither v. Wasson, 42 Ark. 126 ; Wall v. Looney, 52 Ark. 113 ; Arkadelphia Lbr. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.