5 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strong v. Hobbs
green
2 sentences2015Tolefree v. State, 2014 Ark. 26 (per curiam); Strong v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 376 (per curiam). 3 Cite as 2015 Ark. 3 Because appellant did not establish the facial invalidity of the judgment or demonstrate a lack of the trial court’s jurisdiction, he did not establish a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. 2014Strong, 2013 Ark. 376 ; Washington v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 104 (per curiam). | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Dunbar v. State
neutral
2 sentences2015Tolefree v. State, 2014 Ark. 26 (per curiam); Strong v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 376 (per curiam). 3 Cite as 2015 Ark. 3 Because appellant did not establish the facial invalidity of the judgment or demonstrate a lack of the trial court’s jurisdiction, he did not establish a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. 2015Dunbar v. State, 2015 Ark. 3 , 2015 WL 225067 (per curiam). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Tolefree v. State
green
1 sentence2015Tolefree v. State, 2014 Ark. 26 (per curiam); Strong v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 376 (per curiam). 3 Cite as 2015 Ark. 3 Because appellant did not establish the facial invalidity of the judgment or demonstrate a lack of the trial court’s jurisdiction, he did not establish a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2012Howard asserts that this failure to produce evidences an apparent violation of his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and entitles him to a hearing in circuit court to decide the merit of his error coram nobis petition. 2012Howard asserts that this failure to produce evidences an apparent violation of his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and entitles him to a hearing in circuit court to decide the merit of his error coram nobis petition. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2009In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the United States Supreme Court, in an effort to protect an indigent defendant’s right to counsel on appeal, adopted the following procedure for counsel’s withdrawal, where counsel has conscientiously determined that the appeal contains no meritorious issues: [Counsel’s] role as advocate requires that he support his client’s appeal to the best of his ability. 2009In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the United States Supreme Court, in an effort to protect an indigent defendant’s right to counsel on appeal, adopted the following procedure for counsel’s withdrawal, where counsel has conscientiously determined that the appeal contains no meritorious issues: [Counsel’s] role as advocate requires that he support his client’s appeal to the best of his ability. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.