Ray Thornton

“ In testing the sufficiency of the complaint on a motion to dismiss, all reasonable inferences must be resolved in favor of the complaint, and the pleadings are to be liberally construed. Id. Our rules require fact pleading, and a complaint must state facts, not mere conclusions, in order to entitle the pleader to relief. ”

“ It is not controverted that Forrester-Davis is a nonprofit corporation, but no authority has been cited to us, and we know of none, that holds that all nonprofit corporations, by virtue of their status as nonprofit corporations, are immune from suit for tort. We are not aware of any case law holding that nonprofit corporations are ipso facto immune from suit. To the contrary, our statutes provide that nonprofit corporations generally have the power to sue and be sued. Ark. Code Ann. § 4-33-302 (Repl. 2001) of the Arkansas Nonprofit Corporation Act provides in pertinent part ”

“ For his second point on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on the constructive-possession charge for the lack of a usable amount of methamphetamine. Specifically, appellant contends that the State failed to show that appellant possessed a usable amount of methamphetamine in the five plastic bags to establish a violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401 (c) .
There is no provision in our Controlled Substances Act, codified at Ark. Code Ann. ”

“ The jury then sentenced appellant to eight years for the offense of possession of methamphetamine and ten years for the offense of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. The judgment and commitment order was entered on June 10, 2003. Appellant brings his appeal from that order.
[1, 2] Recently, in Jordan v. State, 356 Ark. 248, 147 S.W.3d 691 (2004) , we articulated the standard of review for motions for directed verdict:
It is well settled that we treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. ”

“ These circumstances satisfy the third and fourth factors of constructive possession, as appellant was the driver of the vehicle, the drugs were found directly behind the driver's seat, and he exercised dominion and control over the vehicle. Additionally, a syringe, which was described as drug paraphernalia by Detective Smith, was found on appellant's person. Detective Smith testified that syringes are the most common method of injecting methamphetamine. ”

“ Appellant argued that AMCI 2d 9202 did not give the jury the option of assessing a fine alone.
AMCI 2d 9202 provides:
You have found [appellant] guilty of the offense of __________. The State has also alleged that [appellant] is subject to an extended term of imprisonment as an habitual offender. It is my duty to instruct you that [appellant] has previously been convicted of __________ felonies and is classified as an habitual offender. ”

“ Code Ann. § 5-64-101 (v) (11) , a syringe is deemed as drug paraphernalia when it is intended to be used to inject a controlled substance. Additionally, under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-101 (v) , the syringe in appellant's pocket was in close proximity to the methamphetamine found in the plastic bags behind appellant's driver's seat. We have found that syringes are drug paraphernalia when in close proximity to methamphetamine. ”

“ Co., 325 Ark. 226, 925 S.W.2d 395 (1996) are satisfied: (1) liability insurance must be carried by a nonprofit corporation; (2) a person must suffer injury or damage on account of negligence or wrongful conduct; and (3) the damage or injury must be on account of the negligence or wrongful conduct of "servants, agents, or employees" of the nonprofit corporation acting within the scope of their agency or employment. See id. We disagree.
[4, 5] In Rogers, we did not include the element "and not subject to suit in tort" among the elements that must be established for Ark. ”

“ Other factors to be considered in cases involving automobiles occupied by more than one persons are: (1) whether the contraband is in plain view; (2) whether the contraband is found with the accused's personal effects ”