Terry v. Lock

15 Citing cases

  1. Grande v. Jennings

    229 Ariz. 584 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Grande v. Jennings (2012) 229 Ariz. 584, the court stated, "elementary school children like to say 'finders keepers.' "

    Property is “mislaid” if the owner intentionally places it in a certain place and later forgets about it. Terry v. Lock, 343 Ark. 452, 37 S.W.3d 202, 207 (2001). “Lost” property includes property the owner unintentionally parts with through either carelessness or neglect.

  2. Opinion No. JC-0465

    Opinion No. JC-0465 (Ops. Tex. Atty. Gen. Feb. 21, 2002)

    As suggested by the 1981 Platoro federal district court opinion above, in the absence of a governing statutory provision, ownership or possession of artifacts found on state land would be determined by the common law of finds applicable to personal property found on land and in the water. See, e.g., United States v. Shivers, 96 F.3d 120 (5th Cir. 1996); Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked Abandoned SailingVessel, 569 F.2d 330 (5th Cir. 1978); Terry v. Lock, 37 S.W.3d 202, 206 (Ark. 2001); Corliss v. Wenner, 34 P.3d 1100 (Idaho App. 2001); Ritz v.Selma United Methodist Church, 467 N.W.2d 266, 268-69 (Iowa 1991); Morganv. Wiser, 711 S.W.2d 220, 221-23 (Tenn.App. 1985); Schley v. Couch, 284 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Tex. 1955).

  3. Omni Holding & Development Corp. v. C.A.G. Investments, Inc.

    370 Ark. 220 (Ark. 2007)   Cited 27 times
    Finding no clear error in trial court's conclusion that former lessee abandoned personal property left in building when lessee traveled to Greece instead of retrieving property within one-week time period given by court

    We review equity cases de novo on the record, and we will not reverse unless we determine that the court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous. Taylor v. Finck, 363 Ark. 183, 211 S.W.3d 532 (2005); Terry v. Lock, 343 Ark. 452, 37 S.W.3d 202 (2001). Facts in dispute and determinations of credibility are within the province of the fact-finder.

  4. Corliss v. Wenner

    34 P.3d 1100 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 4 times
    Defining "lost property" as "property which the owner has involuntarily and unintentionally parted with through neglect, carelessness, or inadvertence and does not know the whereabouts"

    ABANDONED PROPERTY — that which the owner has discarded or voluntarily forsaken with the intention of terminating his ownership, but without vesting ownership in any other person. Terry v. Lock, 37 S.W.3d 202, 206 (Ark. 2001); LOST PROPERTY — that property which the owner has involuntarily and unintentionally parted with through neglect, carelessness, or inadvertence and does not know the whereabouts.

  5. Franks v. Pritchett

    197 S.W.3d 5 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 1 times

    The court ruled that the property was mislaid, as opposed to lost or abandoned, and that the money should be surrendered to the Kazis, to be held in trust until it was retrieved by the owner. In its written order, the court expressly relied upon Terry v. Lock, 343 Ark. 452, 27 S.W.3d 202 (2001), and found that the property was neither abandoned nor a treasure trove, and therefore, found that the money was either lost or mislaid. Because the money had been placed in a drawer, as opposed to being found on the floor, the court concluded that the money had been mislaid and forgotten. It further dismissed any claims of appellant, the City of Searcy, and Pritchett. This appeal followed. [1] The rights of a finder of property depend on how the found property is classified, and the character of the property should be determined by evaluating all the facts and circumstances present in the particular case.

  6. Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Carroll Cnty. Holdings, Inc.

    2022 Ark. 128 (Ark. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    It cannot be waived, can be questioned for the first time on appeal, and we are required to raise it sua sponte. Id. (citing Terry v. Lock, 343 Ark. 452, 37 S.W.3d 202 (2001)). See also Hoyle v. Faucher, 334 Ark. 529, 533, 975 S.W.2d 843, 845 (1998) (citing Priest v. Polk, 322 Ark. 673, 912 S.W.2d 902 (1995)).

  7. Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Naturalis Health, LLC

    2018 Ark. 224 (Ark. 2018)   Cited 16 times
    In Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration v. Naturalis Health, LLC, 2018 Ark. 224, 549 S.W.3d 901, this court examined whether section 25-15-212 allows judicial review of MMC licensing decisions.

    It cannot be waived, can be questioned for the first time on appeal, and can be raised by this court sua sponte. Terry v. Lock , 343 Ark. 452, 37 S.W.3d 202 (2001). Subject-matter jurisdiction is determined from the pleadings and not proof.

  8. Nance v. State

    2014 Ark. 201 (Ark. 2014)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Although not raised by any party, this court must determine as a threshold matter whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to consider and rule on those motions. The question of subject-matter jurisdiction is always open for review, cannot be waived, can be questioned for the first time on appeal, and can even be raised by the appellate court. Terry v. Lock, 343 Ark. 452, 37 S.W.3d 202 (2001). If the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, this court also lacks jurisdiction. Section 5–62–106 governs the disposition of animals seized pursuant to the statutory chapter outlining offenses involving animals, including charges of animal cruelty and aggravated animal cruelty.

  9. Lake View School Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee

    362 Ark. 520 (Ark. 2005)   Cited 10 times

    We have a duty to determine if we have jurisdiction over a case, and if we do not, we cannot make any determinations with regard to the matter. Terry v. Lock, 343 Ark. 452, 458, 37 S.W.3d 202, 204 (2001). This court's "power and authority" to hear a case comes from the Arkansas Constitution, specifically Amendment 80, section 2.

  10. Judkins v. Hoover

    351 Ark. 552 (Ark. 2003)   Cited 10 times
    In Judkins, the appellants argued that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the appellee's will contest filed after a hearing at which the court orally admitted the will to probate.

    However, we have made it clear that subject-matter jurisdiction is always open, cannot be waived, can be questioned for the first time on appeal, and can even be raised by this court. Terry v. Lock, 343 Ark. 452, 37 S.W.3d 202 (2001); Hamaker v. Strickland, 340 Ark. 593, 12 S.W.3d 210 (2000). Therefore, we will address the appellants' argument and determine whether the circuit court was without subject-matter jurisdiction.