trier of fact hearing (Arkansas) · Go Syfert
← Arkansas issues

trier of fact hearing in Arkansas

5 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2018 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas.

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
Powers v. City of Fayetteville green
arkctapp · 2007
2 sentences

2016Id.

2016Id.

22016–2016
Halliday v. North Arkansas Regional Medical Center neutral
arkctapp · 2016
1 sentence

2018Id.

12018–2018
CDI CONTRACTORS v. McHale neutral
arkctapp · 1993
2 sentences

2009CDI Contractors v. McHale, 41 Ark.App. 57 , 848 S.W.2d 941 (1993).

2009CDI Contractors v. McHale, 41 Ark.App. 57 , 848 S.W.2d 941 (1993).

12009–2009
Coy v. Iowa green
scotus · 1988
1 sentence

2000Nor were they required by the Confrontation Clause to look at Mr. Smith: “The Confrontation Clause does not, of course, compel the witness to fix his eyes upon the defendant; he may studiously look elsewhere, but the trier of fact will draw its own conclusions.” Coy v. Iowa, supra. (Emphasis added.) Based on the undisputed facts in this case, we conclude that nothing prevented the witnesses from hearing or seeing Mr. Smith and nothing prevented Mr. Smith, the attorneys, and the trier of fact from hearing or seeing the witnesses as they testified against him.

12000–2000

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-102 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 10 (2001–2015) LA 10 (2003–2015) NJ 8 (2010–2024) AR 5 (2000–2018) AZ 3 (1969–2022) UT 3 (1993–2023) MD 2 (1999–2005) PA 2 (2019–2019) CA 2 (2013–2013)

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