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 1975–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Henry Reddickgreen1 sentence2023See Reddick, supra. Therefore, we conclude that under the private-search doctrine, Agent Pinner’s opening of the file did not violate Walker’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and we hold that the trial court’s denial of Walker’s motion to suppress was not clearly erroneous. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chatmon v. State
neutral
1 sentence2014Therefore, we grant Ms. Walker’s motion to be relieved, and we grant Chatmon’s Cite as 2014 Ark. 11 request to appoint him counsel. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Turner v. State
neutral
1 sentence2014Cite as 2014 Ark. 80 Therefore, we grant Ms. Walker’s motion to be relieved, and we appoint attorney Brianne Franks to represent the appellant. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Farm Bureau Insurance Co. of Arkansas, Inc. v. Running M Farms, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Similarly, in Farm Bureau, supra, we reasoned that the status of Sumner Mitchell as a guarantor of the farming corporations did not give him standing to sue Farm Bureau individually as a third-party beneficiary. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Vault v. Adkisson
green
2 sentences1975Stat. Ann. § 43-1802 (Repl. 1964), in part relevant to appellants’ contention, provides that “when two or more defendants are jointly indicted for a capital offense, any defendant requiring it is entitled to a separate trial. . .’’In Vault v. Adkisson, 254 Ark. 75 , 491 S.W. 2d 609 (1973), it was pointed out that an appellant can invoke the procedure of a separate trial “as a matter of right” only when “the accused upon conviction is subject to the imposition of the death penalty.” Here the State waived the death penalty, a step which forecloses Walker’s plea for severance as a matter of right 1975Stat. Ann. § 43-1802 (Repl. 1964), in part relevant to appellants’ contention, provides that “when two or more defendants are jointly indicted for a capital offense, any defendant requiring it is entitled to a separate trial. . .’’In Vault v. Adkisson, 254 Ark. 75 , 491 S.W. 2d 609 (1973), it was pointed out that an appellant can invoke the procedure of a separate trial “as a matter of right” only when “the accused upon conviction is subject to the imposition of the death penalty.” Here the State waived the death penalty, a step which forecloses Walker’s plea for severance as a matter of right | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.