5 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1922–1997 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Damascus v. Bivens
green
2 sentences1997Sisson v. Ragland, supra; City of Damascus v. Bivens, 291 Ark. 600 , 726 S.W.2d 677 (1987). 1997Sisson v. Ragland, supra; City of Damascus v. Bivens, 291 Ark. 600 , 726 S.W.2d 677 (1987). | 2 | 1988–1997 |
Bowman Engineering Co. v. Arkansas & Missouri Highway District
neutral
2 sentences1922Bowman Engineering Co. v. Arkansas-Missouri Highway Dist., 151 Ark. 47 . 1922In that respect the case is the same as Bowman Engineering Co. v. Arkansas-Missouri Highway Dist., 151 Ark. 47 , and the compensation of appellant Annen must he determined upon the quantum meruit rule. | 2 | 1922–1922 |
Phelps v. ELGIN, J. & E. RY. CO.
neutral
2 sentences1993An example of this is found in Phelps v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry., 70 Ill.App.2d 89 , 217 N.E.2d 519 (1966), where the attorney was discharged for cause and under the established law was entitled to recover under the doctrine of quantum meruit. 1993An example of this is found in Phelps v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry., 70 Ill.App.2d 89 , 217 N.E.2d 519 (1966), where the attorney was discharged for cause and under the established law was entitled to recover under the doctrine of quantum meruit. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.