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 3 courts 1996–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Harris v. State, 339 Ark. 35 , 2 S.W.3d 768 (1999). 2008See, e.g., Harris v. State, 339 Ark. 35 , 2 S.W.3d 768 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cooper v. Stategreen2 sentences2004The court stated that defense counsel had made every attempt to show that the witness’s trial testimony was inconsistent with his earlier statements and that “fairness dictated that the prosecutor be allowed to explore this area of inquiry to clarify any confusion or misapprehension that may have lingered in the jury’s mind from defense counsel’s examination.” Id. at 354, 915 S.W.2d at 693 ; see also Harris v. State, supra (holding that trial court properly admitted witness’s entire prior statement where defense counsel had sought to discredit her trial testimony on cross-examination by referr 2004The court stated that defense counsel had made every attempt to show that the witness’s trial testimony was inconsistent with his earlier statements and that “fairness dictated that the prosecutor be allowed to explore this area of inquiry to clarify any confusion or misapprehension that may have lingered in the jury’s mind from defense counsel’s examination.” Id. at 354, 915 S.W.2d at 693 ; see also Harris v. State, supra (holding that trial court properly admitted witness’s entire prior statement where defense counsel had sought to discredit her trial testimony on cross-examination by referr | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frazier v. State
green
2 sentences2004The court stated that defense counsel had made every attempt to show that the witness’s trial testimony was inconsistent with his earlier statements and that “fairness dictated that the prosecutor be allowed to explore this area of inquiry to clarify any confusion or misapprehension that may have lingered in the jury’s mind from defense counsel’s examination.” Id. at 354, 915 S.W.2d at 693 ; see also Harris v. State, supra (holding that trial court properly admitted witness’s entire prior statement where defense counsel had sought to discredit her trial testimony on cross-examination by referr 1999In Frazier v. State, 323 Ark. 350 , 915 S.W.2d 691 (1996), we considered this question in remarkably similar circumstances, and held that when defense counsel had made every attempt to show a witness’s trial testimony was inconsistent with his earlier statements, fairness dictated that the State be allowed to explore this area of inquiry to clarify any confusion or misapprehension that may have lingered in the jury’s mind from defense counsel’s examination. | 2 | 1999–2004 |
Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee
green
2 sentences2003However, in Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee, 351 Ark. 31 , 66-67 , 91 S.W.3d 472 (2002), the court made clear that the constitutional provision just quoted entails a guarantee of adequacy: There is no question in this court's mind that the requirement of a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools places on the State an absolute duty to provide the school children of Arkansas with an adequate education. 2003However, in Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee, 351 Ark. 31 , 66-67 , 91 S.W.3d 472 (2002), the court made clear that the constitutional provision just quoted entails a guarantee of adequacy: There is no question in this court's mind that the requirement of a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools places on the State an absolute duty to provide the school children of Arkansas with an adequate education. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.