Case law

United States v. Bailey

467 F. Supp. 925 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 14, 1979

The government contends that it simply cannot be equitably estopped, that the sovereign, as a part of sovereign immunity, is not subject to principles of equitable estoppel. … Justice clearly demands that the doctrine of equitable estoppel apply in this case.

Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Reich

901 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 20, 1993

The Regulations promulgated by the Secretary ( 41 C.F.R. §§ 60 -250—60-250.53) set forth the affirmative action obligations of contractors and establish enforcement procedures. … Further, exhaustion is not required when the nonjudicial remedy is clearly shown to be inadequate to prevent irreparable injury. Mattel, 945 F.2d at 545 .

Wallace

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 28, 2026

Wallace objects to the Recommendation’s determination that defendant Xavier Sutton is entitled to qualified immunity (Dkt. No. 66). … First, regardless of whether Sutton worked previously or regularly in the barracks at issue, Wallace has failed to come forward with record evidence to establish that Sutton knew or should have known of any information

Griffen v. Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission

266 F. Supp. 2d 898 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 29, 2003

The Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission was established “[u]nder the judicial power of the State” of Arkansas. See Ark. Const., Amend. 66(a). … This clearly serves an adjudicatory function.

Dorobati

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 12, 2026

But it quite clearly does so by implication. See Pet. for Writ of Mandamus and Compl. for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 24– 25 (“After the interview, [Mr. … Muñoz, 602 U.S. at 907–08 (“Congress may delegate to executive officials the discretionary authority to admit noncitizens ‘immune from judicial inquiry or interference.’ . . .

Holt v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 26, 2025

; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … Holt’s RLUIPA claim, it is unnecessary to separately address Defendant Shipman’s assertion of qualified immunity.

Oliver Ex Rel. Estate of Oliver v. United States Army

758 F. Supp. 484 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 13, 1991

Section 501 claims clearly must be exhausted before filing suit. 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(l). Whether the same is true for a § 504 claim, which Morgan asserts, however, is not as clear.... … An independent establishment means an establishment in the executive department, military department, or part thereof. 5 U.S.C. § 104 . The AAFES is a part of the Department of Defense, (footnote omitted).

Jones v. Grant

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 19, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their positions … Because she cannot establish a constitutional violation, Grant is entitled to qualified immunity on Jones’ individual capacity claims.

Terry v. Sanders

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 11, 2023

Terry could state a claim, Defendants are immune from suit, and this Court can’t order them to give Mr. Terry his money back. … Terry.24 And Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacity because it was not clearly established that they could not use Mr.

Swindler v. Lockhart

693 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 12, 1988

It is clearly established law that the number of jurors excused for cause, standing alone, does not entitle a defendant to a change of venue. … Clearly, there was ample evidence in the record to support giving the instruction. Accordingly, this ground for relief is DENIED. VI.

Ellingburg v. Lockhart

397 F. Supp. 771 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 18, 1975

Ellingburg’s right to a mental examination under the procedures established in Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 43-1301-1309. To deny established procedures to a particular accused is a denial of due process, Thomas v. … It is not until the trial court’s ruling on petitioner’s post-eonvietion petition on October 31, 1973, retroactively finding Ellingburg competent to stand trial, that a distinction was clearly made. 3 .

Powell v. Wehco Video Inc

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 13, 2020

First, there is a determination of whether the plaintiff qualifies by economic status under 27 U.S.C. § 1915(a). If she does, the complaint is permitted to be filed. Id. … A claim is frivolous if it “describ[es] fantastic or delusional scenarios,” the factual contentions are “clearly baseless,” or there is no rational basis in the law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327- 28 (1989).

Fitzhugh v. Reid

252 F. 234 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 26, 1918

That the defendant was a public officer of the United States, and as such was immune from service of civil process at the time he was served with the summons in this cause, at Hot Springs, in the state of Arkansas. … Clearly not.

Talley v. Little Rock, City of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 13, 2021

most favorably to the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … immunity.

Arkansas Regional Organ Recovery Agency, Inc. v. Shalala

104 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 6, 2000

The Transplant Amendment Act of 1990, which was enacted on November 16, 1990, amended the requirements applicable in determining whether an OPO was “qualified” so as to require that a “qualified” OPO have a “defined service … It addressed the mandatory nature of the 75% performance standard without opportunity to explain or for corrective action in part as follows: We believe that the establishment of primary performance standards at 75 percent

Campbell

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 14, 2026

The Court determines that the Campbells have not established a violation of an Arkansas statute, and the argument simply amounts to a disagreement with Judge Taylor’s decisions in Dave Campbell’s criminal case. … Here, prosecutors Smith and Plumlee clearly acted in their capacity as prosecuting attorneys in deciding to file charges against and prosecuting Dave Campbell.

Brown

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 22, 2026

Snyder also asserts qualified immunity. … Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (no clearly established right to be free from non-toxic mold), and Wishon v.

Campbell

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 14, 2026

The Court determines that the Campbells have not established a violation of an Arkansas statute, and the argument simply amounts to a disagreement with Judge Taylor’s decisions in Dave Campbell’s criminal case. … Here, prosecutors Smith and Plumlee clearly acted in their capacity as prosecuting attorneys in deciding to file charges against and prosecuting Dave Campbell.

Collins v. Robinson

568 F. Supp. 1464 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 3, 1983

These facts, which are undisputed, clearly made out a prima facie case for McNeely. He was a member of a minority who was qualified for promotion. … A white found less qualified by the promotion board was promoted in his stead. Clearly McNeely has met the test for a prima facie case as established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v.

Miller v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 1, 2023

. *** Wright maintains that her use of force was not excessive, and that even if it was, qualified immunity … Moreover, even if there was a violation, Wright is entitled to qualified immunity—Plaintiff did not provide clearly established law according to which Wright should have known her actions were unlawful, and the Court