Case law

Little Rock Family Planning Services, P.A. v. Dalton

860 F. Supp. 609 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 25, 1994

Congress spoke to this issue clearly in the Amendment and its exceptions, and in similar decisions courts have clearly ruled in a manner supporting plaintiffs’ substantive position in the ease at bar. Roe v. … Obviously, no Establishment Clause issues have been presented to the Court in the case at bar. 7 . In Roe v.

Price v. Holladay

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 23, 2020

In the absence of proof of a constitutional violation, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on the deliberate indifference claim. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the facts do not establish a constitutional violation or (2) the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Cullor v.

Webb v. American International Group, Inc.

277 F. Supp. 2d 1014 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 19, 2003

Because this matter can be adjudicated by one class member without impheating the rights of everyone involved in the suit, it does not qualify as an exception to the Zahn non-aggregation rule. 24 The Eighth Circuit has considered … policy per year. 31 Since the aggregation of in- *1020 junctive relief is not permitted and the amount in controversy must be determined from the plaintiffs viewpoint, the value' of injunctive relief, to any class member, clearly

Johnson v. Griffin

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 31, 2022

Johnson’s complaint “clearly satisfies [the Court’s] ‘straightforward inquiry.’” Verizon Maryland, Inc., 535 U.S. at 645. … Due to the presumption “that qualified, rather than absolute, immunity is sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties . . . the official seeking absolute immunity bears the burden

Mahan v. Reynolds Metals Co.

569 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 28, 1983

Clearly, with respect to resolving individual pension claims, the use of grievance and arbitration procedures is acceptable under ERISA. … Clearly the case before this Court is one in which the “express words” of the contract require resolution of benefit claims by arbitration.

Frazier v. Graves

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 30, 2021

The Court also recognizes that Wellpath, although a private entity, is considered a state actor for purposes of plaintiffs’ claim and that Wellpath is unable to assert a defense of qualified immunity, at least at this stage … The government clearly has a substantial interest in preventing this sort of abuse of its processes. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 34–35 (1984) (citations and footnotes omitted).

Cannon v. Bowers

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 25, 2024

Cannon’s failure to prove causation the Court need not, and therefore does not, reach the second question of the qualified immunity analysis and declines to determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established

L & H SANITATION, INC. v. Lake City Sanitation, Inc.

585 F. Supp. 120 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 2, 1984

What expectations constitute protected “property interests,” however, have not been clearly defined. … See Parratt, 451 U.S. at 536 , 101 S.Ct. at 1913 (“Respondent here refers to no other right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal laws other than the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Price v. Greene County, Arkansas

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 21, 2025

But we can clearly see Nurse Crocker in this first interaction. We know it is Nurse Crocker because she is wearing the same clothes as she is wearing in a subsequent video where she is identified. … immunity as a dismissal ground, so the Court will not address (1) whether qualified immunity could apply to a Turn Key employee in these circumstances, and (2) whether the qualified immunity doctrine would lead to a dismissal

Jones v. Clinton

990 F. Supp. 657 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 1, 1998

That being so, plaintiff cannot establish a tangible job detriment. … These facts are clearly established by the record and dispel the notion that she was subjected to a hostile work environment.

Neighbors v. Block

564 F. Supp. 1075 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 31, 1983

Of course, if the agency has already made a legitimate determination that establishes that the borrower could not in any event qualify for the relief referred to in Section 1981a, then it would not be required to honor such … Section 1475 clearly contemplates and requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations carrying out the specifics of the statute.

Robinson v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

111 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 3, 2000

matters raised in Sears’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs must establish (1) they are members of a protected class; (2) they were qualified for equal pay or, in the case of plaintiff Harris, a full-time position; … Harris claims that she was qualified for the job while Sears argues she was not.

Nelson v. Lockhart

641 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 6, 1986

In one case it must establish some minimum of aggravating circumstances; in the otherit must establish some minimum number of convictions. … As the Supreme Court has held, to spread double jeopardy this broadly would be costly and inconsistent with justice: “It would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment

Hufford v. Rutledge

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

Hufford’s lawsuit against Defendants only named them in their official capacities, which means the lawsuit is one against the State of Arkansas.20 The doctrine of sovereign immunity clearly applies. … Hufford qualifies as a “prevailing party” in the case at bar. See Libertarian Party of Ark. v.

Prevost v. Westbrook

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 30, 2019

Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 493- 94 (8th Cir. 1991) (holding that Arkansas has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity). Second, the Court agrees with Judge Volpe that Mr. … Prevost do not establish a violation of his constitutional rights. As a result, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Prevost’s claims against them in their personal capacities.

Davis v. City of Little Rock

136 F. Supp. 725 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 23, 1955

Aside from the foregoing, the plaintiffs are attacking a rate making ordinance adopted by the City Council under an enabling act of general application throughout the State; this attack on their part clearly involves the … The judges-of the courts of Arkansas are obligated' and fully qualified to protect federal’ constitutional rights, and their rulings-with regard to such rights are subject, to ultimate review by the Supreme Court of the United

Merchants & Planters Bank of Newport, Arkansas v. Smith

380 F. Supp. 354 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 1, 1974

However, section 2 goes on to qualify the authority of a bank to establish a branch in certain significant respects, two of which need to be mentioned : (1) the city or town in which the branch is to be established must be … However, the Comptroller clearly reserves the right to follow some other procedural course or to vary procedures in particular cases where appropriate. 4 I.

Noel v. Norris

194 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 16, 2002

A state court’s decision will be viewed as “ ‘contrary to’ clearly established federal law if the state court has applied a rule that directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent or has reached a result opposite to a result … This Court cannot say that the state court’s determination was an unreasonable application of clearly established law.

Nelson v. Pulaski County Sheriff's Department

859 F. Supp. 1228 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 12, 1994

Nelson, has met his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. … The Court finds that the plaintiff was qualified for the position for which he applied.

Bearden v. International Paper Co.

628 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 17, 2007

Sam’s Club, 487 F.3d 641, 644 (8th Cir.2007). 6 To establish a prima facie case *991 of gender discrimination, plaintiff must establish (1) she was a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified to perform her job, … Co., 87 F.3d 1029, 1031 (8th Cir.1996), and Staudt’s communication with Baymiller clearly would fall within the scope of this privilege. 22 In addition, Ei *1001 kamp’s informing his staff that plaintiff had been terminated