Hill v. Kelly

19 Citing cases

  1. Johnson v. Young

    2017 Ark. App. 132 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 7 times
    In Johnson, appellant had filed a request in the circuit court to increase her ex-husband's child support payments based on a material change in circumstances.

    A court reconsiders a child-support award when there has been a material change in circumstances. Hill v. Kelly , 368 Ark. 200, 207, 243 S.W.3d 886, 891 (2006). This is true even when the parents agreed to the amount of child support, as the parties did in this case.

  2. Langston v. Brown

    2016 Ark. App. 535 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    The question of whether there has been a material change in circumstances is governed by Arkansas Code Annotated section 9–14–107(a)(1), which provides as follows:Troutman v. Troutman, 2016 Ark. App. 70, at 5, 482 S.W.3d 365, 369 (citing Hall v. Hall, 2013 Ark. 330, 429 S.W.3d 219 ; Brown v. Brown, 2014 Ark. App. 455, 440 S.W.3d 361 ; Hill v. Kelly, 368 Ark. 200, 243 S.W.3d 886 (2006) ).Id. (citing Hall, supra ).

  3. Hill v. Kelly

    2014 Ark. 34 (Ark. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(a)(7) (2013), as this is a subsequent appeal following an appeal that has been decided in the supreme court. See Hill v. Kelly, 368 Ark. 200, 243 S.W.3d 886 (2006); Kelly v. Kelly, 341 Ark. 596, 19 S.W.3d 1 (2000). We reverse and remand.

  4. Hall v. Hall

    2013 Ark. 330 (Ark. 2013)   Cited 29 times

    It is axiomatic that a change in circumstances must be shown before a court can modify an order for child support. See Hill v. Kelly, 368 Ark. 200, 243 S.W.3d 886 (2006). In addition, the party seeking modification has the burden of showing a change in circumstances.

  5. Young v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

    2012 Ark. 334 (Ark. 2012)   Cited 13 times
    In Young, supra, a dependency-neglect proceeding was opened under the Juvenile Code after Young was involved in an accident while driving intoxicated, and her daughter MC1 was injured.

    A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court, on the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Kelly v. Hill, 368 Ark. 200, 207, 243 S.W.3d 886, 890 (2006). We give due deference to the trial court's superior position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.

  6. Nisha, LLC v. Tribuilt Construction Group, LLC

    2012 Ark. 130 (Ark. 2012)   Cited 7 times

    As such, those conclusions are given no deference on appeal, and this court's standard of review is de novo on both issues. See Hill v. Kelly, 368 Ark. 200, 207, 243 S.W.3d 886, 890–91 (2006). Although NISHA and Centennial present this as their second point for reversal, the question of whether the arbitrator or this court has the power to determine if a nonlawyer can represent a corporation during arbitration proceedings is jurisdictional and must be addressed first.

  7. Paulino v. QHG of Springdale, Inc.

    2012 Ark. 55 (Ark. 2012)   Cited 13 times
    Stating that negligent supervision and negligent retention claims are limited to supervision and retention of employees

    The issue of whether a cause of action for negligent credentialing is a new tort or one that falls within the ambit of the Medical Malpractice Act is an issue of law. A circuit court's conclusions of law are not given deference on appeal. Hill v. Kelly, 368 Ark. 200, 207, 243 S.W.3d 886, 890–91 (2006). The circuit court in its order for summary judgment concluded that Arkansas's Medical Malpractice Act does not confer a cause of action for negligent credentialing.

  8. Paulino v. QHG of Springdale, Inc.

    2012 Ark. 55 (Ark. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    The issue of whether a cause of action for negligent credentialing is a new tort or one that falls within the ambit of the Medical Malpractice Act is an issue of law. A circuit court's conclusions of law are not given deference on appeal. Hill v. Kelly, 368 Ark. 200, 207, 243 S.W.3d 886, 890-91 (2006). The circuit court in its order for summary judgment concluded that Arkansas's Medical Malpractice Act does not confer a cause of action for negligent credentialing.

  9. In re Proposed Amendments

    2010 Ark. 441 (Ark. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Six dependents: 32% To compute child support when income exceeds the chart, add together the maximum weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, or monthly chart amount, and the percentage of the dollar amount that exceeds that figure, using the percentage above based upon the number of dependents. Example: The maximum on the weekly chart is $1,000 a week. If a payor's net weekly income is $1,200 and support will be computed for one child-add $149 (the chart amount of support for one child when payor's net weekly income is $1,000) and $30 (15% of $200, the amount exceeding the maximum chart amount), for total child support of $179. Hill v. Kelly, 368 Ark.200, 243 S.W.3d 886 (2006) (case decided before the Administrative Order was amended to include this computation and example). c. Nonsalaried Payors. For Social Security Disability recipients, the court should consider the amount of any separate awards made to the disability recipient's spouse and children on account of the payor's disability.

  10. Taylor v. Taylor

    369 Ark. 31 (Ark. 2007)   Cited 74 times
    Affirming award of alimony and citing as one factor the parties' arrangement during their marriage for the wife to stay home and care for the children

    See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-1.2-312(a)(2) (Repl. 2002); Hill v. Kelly, 368 Ark. 200, 243 S.W.3d 886 (2006). There is a rebuttable presumption that the amount contained in the family support chart is the proper amount of child support to be awarded.