Case law

Marshall v. Helena-West Helena, City of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 1, 2024

Jones’s statement to the police that Marshall threatened to beat him up clearly identified Marshall, was of a defamatory nature, and constitutes publication. … Louis, 40 F.4th 895, 903 (8th Cir. 2022) (official entitled to qualified immunity for initiating prosecution supported by “arguable probable cause’’). IV.

Webb v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

95 F.R.D. 357 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 13, 1982

Plaintiffs are not-required to establish a prima facie case of liability in order to establish the prerequisite of commonality. … Therefore, the standard of typicality has been established.

Jackson v. First Federal Sav. of Arkansas, FA

709 F. Supp. 863 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 15, 1988

Consequently, each plaintiff will be obliged at trial to establish his or her reliance on the alleged misrepresentations.”) … Clearly, the bonds were not “worthless.”

GREEN PARTY OF ARKANSAS v. Daniels

733 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 20, 2010

“In short, the principle of sovereign immunity is a constitutional limitation on the federal judicial power established in Artficle] III [of the Constitution].... ” 465 U.S. at 98 , 104 S.Ct. 900 . … “Past experience will be a helpful, if not always an unerring, guide: it will be one thing if [the Green party has] qualified with some regularity, and quite a different matter if [it has] not.”

Martin v. Arkansas Department of Health

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 29, 2023

Eleventh Amendment Immunity Ms. … ADH claims that it is immune under the Eleventh Amendment because Titles I and V of the ADA and the ACRA do not abrogate its immunity and therefore this Court is divested of jurisdiction to hear Ms.

Hardy v. Department of Veterans Affairs

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 3, 2024

Code Ann. § 16-114-201 (requiring receipt of medical services to establish medical injury). … His claims also fail under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. section 631(a), because the ADEA only applies to employment discrimination, and Hardy is not old enough to qualify under the Act.

M & K Restaurant LLC v. Farmers Insurance

29 F. Supp. 3d 1204 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 8, 2014

While § 4072 clearly allows suits against the Administrator of FEMA when the Administrator denies a *1209 claim, it does not mention actions against WYO carriers. … A(l), quoted above, clearly states that “all disputes arising from the handling of any claim under the policy” are expressly preempted by federal law.

Tyler v. Thyer

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 14, 2023

Payments are to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Court with Tyler’s name and case number clearly identified. II. … And, nothing in the complaint establishes that Judge Thyer has acted outside of her judicial capacity or absent jurisdiction. Hamilton v. City of Hayti, Mo., 948 F.3d 921, 925 (8th Cir. 2020).

National Bank of Commerce v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.

22 F. Supp. 2d 942 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 12, 1998

Again, I am not qualified to talk about a dose response curve with respect to aflatoxin exposure. … established.

United States v. Arkansas

794 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 8, 2011

All three were qualified as experts and all three testified credibly. Dr. … Qualified Mental Retardation Professional. 15 . Interdisciplinary Team. 16 .

Mitchell v. Stephens

232 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 6, 1964

Both Massiah and Spano are clearly distinguishable from the instant case in which petitioner, himself, requested to make a statement. … Furthermore, the evidence clearly establishes that petitioner was sane at the time he committed the rape, that he had effective assistance of counsel throughout the state court proceedings, and that there was no discrimination

United States v. Baker

504 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 16, 2007

Attor- *407 ne/s Manual which clearly spell this out. 11 The Defendant likewise notes the case of U.S. v. … United States Attorneys are clearly “officers” of the United States. See Buckley v.

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Connect Communications

72 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 22, 1999

Instead of establishing a static statutory scheme governing these interconnections, Congress instructed the parties to enter into private interconnection agreements establishing the terms of, and compensation for, interconnection … Connect and the APSC responded to the Complaint by filing motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and state immunity. II.

Young v. Faulkner County Department of Human Services

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 23, 2022

exceeds $10.00, until the $350 filing fee is fully paid.4 All payments should be clearly identified by the name and number assigned to this case. … Larson, 396 F.3d 975, 978 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (mere negligence insufficient to establish culpability under § 1983). 11Ballinger v.

Ward v. United States

65 F. Supp. 9 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 29, 1946

There the recruiting officer told him the navy did not need his services as an attorney but his services in clerical and secretarial work were urgently needed, which work he was qualified to do by earlier experience. … It is all inclusive as to persons to whom it is applicable, and under the allegations of the complaint the plaintiff clearly falls within the affected class.

Irvin v. Mohawk Rubber Company

308 F. Supp. 152 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 12, 1970

There is no issue as to the wage scale on an hourly basis and the record fails to establish any discrimination against Negroes as a class with respect to pay. Neither is there any issue on the question of training. … Departmental seniority is clearly given preferred treatment over employment seniority.

Rector v. Lockhart

727 F. Supp. 1285 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 3, 1990

His defense seems to be fairly clearly stated to us that he doesn’t remember anything. He was able to express that quite clearly. … When the testimony of these three witnesses is juxtaposed against the testimony of the four highly qualified experts who testified at prior to Rector’s 1982 state trial, I am not impressed.

Wilkerson v. Sarver

72 F.R.D. 605 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 19, 1976

The Court granted the motion as to defendant Eardley and dismissed the complaint as to him for the reason that the testimony failed to establish that Dr. … The viability of vicarious liability under the civil rights acts is not clearly settled in the federal courts. In Jennings v.

Boivin v. Huckabee-Sanders

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 6, 2024

An inmate’s complaints regarding a “general fear for his safety” do not establish that a defendant “acted with deliberate indifference by not placing him in protective custody.” Robinson v. … Participation in the administrative grievance procedure alone is insufficient to establish liability under § 1983. See Rowe v. Norris, 198 F. App’x 579, 580 (8th Cir. 2006) (unpublished).

Richardson v. United States

358 F. Supp. 994 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 22, 1973

It is well established that under the law the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the facts and his claim in this proceeding. The cases are legend on this rule of law. … In the instant case the United States qualifies as a lien creditor under the definition of the term. In United States v.