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 2 courts 2004–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barker v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2010Mangrum, 359 Ark. 373 , 198 S.W.3d 496 ; see also Barker v. Clark, 343 Ark. 8 , 33 S.W.3d 476 (2000). 2010Mangrum, 359 Ark. 373 , 198 S.W.3d 496 ; see also Barker v. Clark, 343 Ark. 8 , 33 S.W.3d 476 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schubert v. Target Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Schubert v. Target Stores, Inc., 2010 Ark. 466, at 6 , 369 S.W.3d 717, 720 . 2023Schubert v. Target Stores, Inc., 2010 Ark. 466, at 6 , 369 S.W.3d 717, 720 . | 3 | 2011–2023 |
Johnson v. M.S. Development Co.
green
1 sentence2012App. 542, at 4-5 , 386 S.W.3d 46, 48-49 , as follows: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was developed to assist in the proof of negligence where the cause is connected with an instrumentality in the exclusive control of a defendant. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Myers v. Cooper Clinic, P.A.
neutral
1 sentence2011App. 435, at 9 , 384 S.W.3d 622, 627 . |4The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was developed to assist in the proof of negligence where the cause is connected with an instrumentality in the exclusive control of a defendant. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Mangrum v. Pigue
green
2 sentences2010Mangrum, 359 Ark. 373 , 198 S.W.3d 496 ; see also Barker v. Clark, 343 Ark. 8 , 33 S.W.3d 476 (2000). 2010Mangrum, 359 Ark. 373 , 198 S.W.3d 496 ; see also Barker v. Clark, 343 Ark. 8 , 33 S.W.3d 476 (2000). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Reece v. Webster
green
2 sentences2004The origin and purpose of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur were discussed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Reece v. Webster, 221 Ark. 826 , 256 S.W.2d 345 (1953): The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was developed to assist in the proof of negligence where the cause of an unusual happening connected with some instrumentality in the exclusive possession and control of defendant could not be readily established by the plaintiff. 2004The origin and purpose of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur were discussed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Reece v. Webster, 221 Ark. 826 , 256 S.W.2d 345 (1953): The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was developed to assist in the proof of negligence where the cause of an unusual happening connected with some instrumentality in the exclusive possession and control of defendant could not be readily established by the plaintiff. | 1 | 2004–2004 |