Case law

Morris v. Williams

59 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 5, 1944

As in all cases of a civil nature the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish her case by a fair preponderance of the evidence. … Keefe et al., 50 F.Supp. 647, 651 , the learned District Judge said: “College degrees conferred upon one and years of teaching experience do not of themselves qualify one for the profession of teaching or of supervising of

Phillips v. Morton Frozen Foods

313 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 27, 1970

Hedge, (1927) 173 Ark. 729 , 293 S.W. 9 , and defendant has clearly failed to establish knowledge and understanding of the danger on the part of plaintiff. … Not only has he presided over the trial but he is qualified by training and by experience to assess reasonable compensation for legal services.

Davis-Brown v. Haggerty

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 18, 2024

The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). III. … To establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must prove that an official municipal policy, deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise, or unofficial custom caused the constitutional injury. Corwin v.

Jackson v. First Federal Sav. of Arkansas, FA

709 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 13, 1989

Qualifying Bank Board’s policy to disclose even FOIA exempt materials unless such disclosure is contrary to public or private interest stands section 505.5, the substantive rule at issue here: (a) General rule. … In Chrysler Corp., in language quoted above, the Supreme Court stated as clearly as it can possibly be stated that “[t]his is not to say that any grant of legislative authority to a federal agency by Congress must be specific

Clinton v. West Memphis Arkansas, City of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 20, 2023

Moreover, the officers’ violation of the police department policy requiring them to obtain a signed affidavit before making a shoplifting arrest does not establish a constitutional violation. See Kennedy v. … Presley and the other officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Pearson v. Callahan., 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). Even if there were a genuine dispute about the risk of serious physical harm to M.

Marks v. New Edinburg School District

259 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 17, 1966

This is a class action to desegregate the schools of the New Edinburg School District and bring to an end racial segregation of the public schools solely because of race or color, claiming rights, privileges and immunities … The burden rests upon the districts in establishing that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance.

Moore v. Little Rock, City of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 14, 2024

Qualified Immunity Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Accordingly, qualified immunity is established on the face of the complaint as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the Defendant officials in their individual capacities. See Gordon v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ.

Henry v. Franks

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 28, 2022

First, Henry must clearly describe each named defendant’s involvement in the violation of his rights. … Additionally, participation in the administrative grievance process alone is insufficient to establish liability under § 1983. See Rowe v. Norris, 198 F. App’x 579, 580 (8th Cir. 2006).

Roberts v. Norris

526 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 13, 2007

Roberts’ death sentence should be vacated since there was a failure to life-qualify the jury. Claim 3: The sentencing provisions of Arkansas’ capital murder statutes are unconstitutional. … Frankly, if the record in this case does not establish “good cause,” I am at a loss to understand the meaning of the term.

Rundel v. Crocker

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 5, 2023

To establish deliberate indifference, defendants must have “recognized that a substantial risk of harm existed and knew that their conduct was inappropriate in light of that risk.” … All payments forwarded on Plaintiffs behalf must be clearly identified by the name and number assigned to this action. 3.

Martin v. Department of Agriculture

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 19, 2020

“If the comparison ‘reveals that the plaintiff was only similarly qualified or not as qualified as the selected candidate,’ then no inference of . . . discrimination would arise.” … Martin has presented shows that she was only similarly qualified or not as qualified as Ms. Choate and Ms. Davis, without any evidence of intentional discrimination, Ms.

Watkins

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 11, 2026

The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). II. … What Plaintiff has alleged is not enough to establish retaliatory animus. Antonelli v. Tipton, Case No. 08-3123, 2009 WL 4825169 at *904 (8th Cir.

Hill v. Lockhart

824 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 23, 1993

Here, the prosecutor attempted to get in through the back door what was clearly prohibited by the statute. Aggravating circumstances are limited to those set forth in the statute. … Hill cannot establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance.

Potlatch Forests, Inc. v. Hays

318 F. Supp. 1368 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 12, 1970

Potlatch is clearly an industry affecting interstate commerce, and the employees with whom the Court is concerned are engaged either in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for such commerce. … “The standards for determining whether a state statute is invalid under the Supremacy Clause, because of a conflict with a federal statute, are well established.

Elmore v. Shipman

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 17, 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. … These allegations do not clearly relate to the April 13, 2023 attack or any other attack or incident. is proceeding. See Doc. Nos. 20 & 57.

Fairchild v. Lockhart

675 F. Supp. 469 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 11, 1987

However, to establish that the good-faith exception might be available in a case of this sort is not to establish that the exception necessarily does apply under the instant facts. … The state’s reticence on this issue is understandable, since the Court is unable to ascertain any circumstances in this case that would qualify as “intervening.”

Fairchild v. Norris

869 F. Supp. 672 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 24, 1993

Clearly, the same statement could be made about rape. Indeed, more people are probably killed in the course of robberies than in connection with rapes. … Clearly, under such circumstances, a finding that evidence of a mitigating circumstance had not been presented does not equate to a finding of its opposite.

Fink v. Poinsett County Jail

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 12, 2024

complaint or a portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … However, it is well established that jails and detention centers do not qualify as persons amenable to suit under § 1983. Day v. Minnehaha County, 632 Fed. Appx. 305 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (citing Owens v.

House v. University of Central Arkansas ex rel. Board of Trustees of the University of Central Arkansas

684 F. Supp. 222 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 12, 1988

House relies solely on the undisputed provisions of the UCA handbook which clearly do not support her position. The undisputed facts also negate Ms. … “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an *229 abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Heard v. Association of Arkansas Counties Risk Management Fund

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 4, 2025

The rule clearly is one of admissibility rather than exclusion.” Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 270 F.3d 681, 686 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted). … McBride clearly exhibited multiple signs of increased intracranial pressure.” (Id., at 3). Namely, Mr.