Bassett v. Hobart Corp.

3 Citing cases

  1. City of Pocahontas v. Huddleston

    831 S.W.2d 138 (Ark. 1992)   Cited 11 times

    When a case is tried by a circuit court sitting without a jury, our inquiry on appeal is not whether there is substantial evidence to support the factual findings of the court, but whether the findings are clearly erroneous (clearly against the preponderance of the evidence). Bassett v. Hobart Corp., 292 Ark. 592, 732 S.W.2d 133 (1987). See also Superior Improvement Co. v. Mastic Corp., 270 Ark. 471, 604 S.W.2d 950 (1980).

  2. Jernigan v. Cash

    767 S.W.2d 517 (Ark. 1989)   Cited 8 times

    [1, 2] When a case is tried by a circuit court sitting without a jury, our inquiry on appeal is not whether there is substantial evidence to support the factual findings of the court, but whether the findings are clearly erroneous (clearly against the preponderance of the evidence). Bassett v. Hobart Corp. 292 Ark. 592, 732 S.W.2d 133 (1987). See also Superior Improvements Co. v. Mastic Corp., 270 Ark. 471, 604 S.W.2d 950 (1980).

  3. Centennial Valley Ranch Management, Inc. v. Agri-Tech Ltd. Partnership

    38 Ark. App. 177 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 3 times

    According to his affidavit, Clyde Lawson and his wife later purchased a ranch in Arkansas and leased the ranch to CVR for it to use to maintain the 1600 head of cattle which CVR had agreed with Agri-Tech to feed and care for; Lawson and his wife also purchased CVR; this purchase covered only the maintenance agreement with Agri-Tech; since July of 1985, CVR has operated in no state other than Arkansas. The appellant cites Goode v. Universal Plastics, Inc., 247 Ark. 442, 445 S.W.2d 893 (1969); Hough v. Continental Leasing Corp., 275 Ark. 340, 630 S.W.2d 19 (1982); and Bassett v. Hobart Corporation, 292 Ark. 592, 732 S.W.2d 133 (1987), for the proposition that corporations who do business in Arkansas, but fail to qualify for that purpose in this state, may nevertheless enforce contracts in this state if those contracts were made in another state. These cases do not help appellant because they were controlled by the Wingo Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. 64-1201-02. That section provided that "any foreign corporation which shall fail or refuse to file its articles of incorporation or certificate as aforesaid, cannot make any contract in the state which can be enforced by it either in law or in equity.