mere isolated violation (Arkansas) · Go Syfert
← Arkansas issues

mere isolated violation in Arkansas

5 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2010 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Warren G. Johnsongreen
ca10 · 1972 · cited in 4 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1983–2010
2 sentences

2010However, where the affidavit properly recites facts indicating activity of a protracted and continuous nature, a course of conduct, the passage of time becomes less significant. 461 F.2d 285, 287 (10th Cir.1972).

1983The magistrate could easily believe that the information contained in that affidavit indicated “an on-going business rather than a mere isolated violation,” United States v. Johnson, 461 F.2d 285 (10th Cir. 1972).

24

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 (1)

CaseCitedYears
Ilo v. State green
ark · 2002
1 sentence

2004Id.

12004–2004

Where else courts name it

TX 8 (1991–2017) MA 5 (1975–2014) AR 5 (1983–2010) NJ 4 (1976–2025) AL 3 (1977–2004) DE 2 (1977–2024) FL 2 (1980–2013) OH 2 (2008–2009)

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