evidence. Accordingly, we hold the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that no common-law marriage existed between the parties and, therefore, in dismissing the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. IV Judicial Estoppel For his second point on appeal, appellant asserts that appellee’s contention that she was never legally married to appellant violates the doctrine of judicial es-toppel by inconsistent positions. We decline to address this argument as appellant neither raised this issue nor obtained a ruling in circuit court, and we will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or when a party has failed to obtain a ruling from the circuit court. See, e.g., Beverly Enterprises-Arkansas, Inc. v. Thomas, 370 Ark. 310, 316, 259 S.W.3d 445, 449 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. PITTMAN and ROBBINS, JJ„
holding that appellants failure to obtain a ruling at the trial level even on a constitutional issue precluded review on appeal holding that the failure to identify or argue an issue in an opening brief constitutes waiver of that argument on appeal holding that a party must obtain a distinct ruling on an issue in order to raise it on appeal holding that the failure to obtain a ruling on a motion for new trial waives the issues raised for appellate review holding failure to argue elements or obtain ruling on judicial estoppel precluded review