Arkansas Power Light Co. v. Mason

4 Citing cases

  1. Weinstock v. United States

    231 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1956)   Cited 67 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing materiality in the false statement context

    114 F.2d 475 (D.C. Cir. 1940); Blackmon v. United States, 108 F.2d 572 (5 Cir., 1940); Central S. West Utilities Co. v. Securities E. Comm., 78 U.S.App.D.C. 37, 136 F.2d 273 (D.C. Cir. 1943); Freidus v. United States, supra; Woolley v. United States, 97 F.2d 258 (9 Cir., 1938), certiorari denied 305 U.S. 614, 59 S.Ct. 73, 83 L. Ed. 391 (1938); United States v. Hendrickson, 200 F.2d 137 (7 Cir., 1952), certiorari denied 345 U.S. 926, 73 S.Ct. 785, 97 L.Ed. 1357 (1953); Willoughby v. Jamison, 103 F.2d 821 (8 Cir., 1939), certiorari denied 308 U.S. 588, 60 S.Ct. 111, 84 L.Ed. 492 (1939); Patrick v. Cochise Hotels, 76 Ariz. 136, 259 P.2d 569 (1953); State v. Fasano, 119 Conn. 455, 177 A. 376 (1935); Schloss v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 177 Md. 191, 9 A.2d 244 (1939); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Kuhlenschmidt, 218 Ind. 404, 33 N.E.2d 340, 135 A.L.R. 397 (1941); People v. Kresel, 147 Misc. 241, 264 N.Y.S. 464 (1932); Knight v. Citizens Coach Co., 307 Ill. App.? 251, 30 N.E.2d 180 (1940); Arkansas Power Light Co. v. Mason, 191 Ark. 804, 87 S.W.2d 988 (1935); Sellers v. Harvey, 222 Ark. 804, 263 S.W.2d 86 (1954); 2 Wharton, Criminal Law §§ 1542-1548 (12th ed. 1932); 2 Bishop, Criminal Law § 1032 (9th ed. 1923). Possibly contra: United States v. Slutzky, 79 F.2d 504 (3 Cir., 1935).

  2. Cox v. Farrell

    292 Ark. 177 (Ark. 1987)   Cited 3 times

    We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the motion. Sellers v. Harvey, 220 Ark. 541, 249 S.W.2d 120 (1952); Arkansas Power Light Co. v. Mason, 191 Ark. 804, 87 S.W.2d 988 (1935). There were a number of discrepancies in Worley's testimony.

  3. Hunt's Dry Goods Co., Inc. v. Ridenour

    243 S.W.2d 742 (Ark. 1951)   Cited 1 times

    Such action of the trial court is urged here as error calling for the granting of a new trial. To a large extent appellant relies on the case of Arkansas Power Light Company v. Mason, 191 Ark. 804, 87 S.W.2d 988. However, there is quite a distinction between that case and the case at bar.

  4. Dacus v. State

    118 S.W.2d 259 (Ark. 1938)

    This was one of the sharply contested issues of fact in the case, and the law is definitely settled that newly-discovered evidence which is merely cumulative or tends only to impeach the credit of a witness is no ground for a new trial. Jones v. State, 72 Ark. 404, 80 S.W. 1088; Hayes v. State, 142 Ark. 587, 219 S.W. 312; Murphy v. Willis, 143 Ark. 1, 219 S.W. 776; Bradley Lbr. Co. v. Beasley, 160 Ark. 622, 255 S.W. 18; Arkansas Power Light Co. v. Mart, 188 Ark. 202, 65 S.W.2d 39; Arkansas Power Light Co. v. Mason, 191 Ark. 804, 87 S.W.2d 988. No error appearing, the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.