Case law

Lamar v. Sanders

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 16, 2022

As the Court noted in the Preliminary Injunction Order, “[a] suit against a state official for money in federal court raises the specters of Eleventh Amendment immunity, state sovereign immunity, and qualified immunity … That seems to strike at the heart of the immunity doctrines. Even if such an order would technically not be barred by immunity, the same considerations create “exceptional or unusual 92 Thomas v.

Pitts v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 10, 2024

As such, Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis only on those claims for which he has established imminent danger of serious physical harm. … 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).

St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc. v. Sullivan

781 F. Supp. 576 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 16, 1991

Income from funded depreciation or provider’s qualified pension fund is not used to reduce interest expense. … The case is clearly distinguishable.

Martinez-Bautista v. D & S PRODUCE

447 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 25, 2006

The Supreme Court has established guidelines to assist trial courts in determining whether this standard has been met: The inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is a need for trial — whether … The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S. worker. (Application for Alien Employment Certification, p. 2, Exh. A to Dkt. # 54). The application requested thirty H-2A workers.

Keasler v. United States

585 F. Supp. 825 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 13, 1984

. *830 attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $75 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings … Under this framework, the Court must conclude that the Government cannot automatically establish “substantial justification” simply by brandishing a revenue ruling.

Parker v. Siemens-Allis, Inc.

601 F. Supp. 1377 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 21, 1985

Defendant’s actions in promoting Garmon clearly had an impact on the subsequent decision to lay off plaintiff. 54. … Plaintiff, Linda Parker, has established a prima facie case of sex discrimination in employment because: A. She was qualified for the position; B. She was discharged from her position; C.

Andrews v. Mohawk Rubber Co.

474 F. Supp. 1276 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 30, 1979

The principle of conditional privilege in defamation actions is well established and defined in Arkansas decisions. The early case of Bohlinger v. Germania Life Ins. … The elements necessary to a qualified privilege are all present in this case. The statements about plaintiff were, the Court finds, made in good faith.

Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

354 F. Supp. 2d 924 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 1, 2005

The finding that the main purpose of the admission was to perform autologous stem cell transplants is clearly erroneous. … The ALJ’s interpretation of .the version of § 35-30.1 in effect in 1999 is clearly erroneous.

Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc. v. National Bank

875 F. Supp. 2d 911 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 25, 2012

The Court finds that mortgage loans are clearly defined as “things in action” and “investment securities” under New York law and, therefore, Article 2 does not apply to them. … NBA argues that the evidence of LBHI’s damages should be excluded because Robin Akell, the witness sponsoring the business records establishing LBHI’s damages, is not a qualified witness to establish that they are business

Jones v. North Little Rock School District

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

Jones “may not rely on past performance alone to establish that []he is a qualified individual when the record clearly reflects diminished or deteriorated abilities.” Browning, 178 F.3d at 1048. … Jones has failed to establish that, at the time of his termination, he was qualified to “perform the essential functions of the job either with or without reasonable accommodation.” See Peyton, 561 F.3d at 903.

Williams v. Fitzpatrick

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 19, 2023

Foote, 782 F.3d 968, 972 (8th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he male officers did not violate Story’s clearly established rights by conducting the inspection in a location where a female officer also may have viewed the search from the … Violation of prison policy, without more, is not sufficient to establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997). C.

Terry

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 12, 2025

1915(a), Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”) should be denied because Plaintiff is a “three striker” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and, as set out below, has not established … 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).

Hensley v. Department of Justice

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 1, 2022

The Court also must 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). … IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2022. 1 “It is well-established that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect.”

Simmons v. Stinyard

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 17, 2025

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. … But to establish liability in an official capacity suit under § 1983, even in connection with a request for injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant took action pursuant to an unconstitutional policy

Leadership Roundtable v. City of Little Rock

499 F. Supp. 579 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 26, 1980

Nevertheless their efforts to establish citizen participation were successful. (Mahlon A. Martin, Nathaniel Hill). 32. … In the case sub judice, the evidence does not even clearly establish an adverse impact on the blacks in Little Rock.

Ricetec Inc v. Cook

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 15, 2020

Cook asserted that “[t]he facts pled clearly establish an intentional tort on the part of the Movant such that any immunity offered by A.C.A. § 16-22-310(a) is specifically exempted from the operation of that statute by … Co. of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 747 F.2d 462, 463 (8th Cir. 1984) (“The [voluntary-involuntary] rule establishes a bright line test for evaluating removability.

Jewell v. Stebbins

288 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 10, 1968

Specifically, he said: “Qualified Negroes excluded by discrimination have available, in addition, remedies in courts of equity. … Enough has been said in the circumstances about the make-up of the Grand Jury, and the Court now addresses itself to a consideration of whether injunctive relief should be granted on the basis of the racial discrimination established

Lonix v. Wellpath Incorporation Regional Office

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 7, 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. … But violation of a prison policy, without more, does not establish § 1983 liability. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997).

Turner v. State of Ark.

784 F. Supp. 553 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 15, 1991

Clearly not. … Supreme Court is clearly of more precedential significance than a denial of certiorari. But the question is: how much more?

Ashford v. Kingdom

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 21, 2024

complaint or 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 … As the Supreme Court of the United States explained, “a court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless,’ . . .