Case law

Becknell v. Quinn

592 F. Supp. 102 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 21, 1983

In addition, the letter stated: We solicit your comments and suggestions on the sale, particularly with regard to qualified persons who may be interested in acquiring these units. … Benham, III (“Benham”), counsel for FNB, that special efforts should be made to establish a fair price for the first lot and offered to assist Benham in establishing such a price.

Finney v. Mabry

528 F. Supp. 567 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 15, 1981

Vocational Training Courses available to qualified applicants. None. Work — Job Assignments Required. Not presently required. Enforcement of policy will require. Tobacco Purchase allowed; provided for indigents. Same. … The Wolff standard, however, clearly stops short of requiring legal assistance in all disciplinary hearings.

United States v. Lee

89 F. Supp. 2d 1017 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 21, 2000

Although this Court does not have the authority to review, or look behind, the Attorney General’s ultimate decision, the aforementioned cases clearly establish that this Court can require her to follow her procedural Protocol … It clearly shows the experience and expertise Dr. Cunningham has in the area of "future dangerousness.”

Kelly v. Bumpers

340 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 21, 1972

Petitioners are four citizens and qualified electors of Pulaski County (Little Rock, North Little Rock, etc.) and Sebastian County (Fort Smith), Arkansas. … This the Board clearly had the right to do in order to achieve the substantial equality of representation required by the apportionment decisions of the United States Supreme Court, supra; see U.S.Const., Art.

Hopman v. Union Pacific Railroad

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 26, 2020

The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish that there is a genuine issue to be determined at trial. Prudential Ins. Co. v. … “Although employment discrimination cases are ‘often fact intensive and dependent on nuance in the workplace, they are not immune from summary judgment.’” Trierweiler v.

Arkansas Nature Alliance, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

266 F. Supp. 2d 876 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 14, 2003

The condition stated, “You shall place signs on both ends of the bridge that are clearly visible at all times. … All applications which qualify as letters of permission (as described at 33 C.F.R. 325.5(b)(2)). 50 The activities of the first four exclusions are individual and non-intrusive.

Ellis v. Pulaski County Jail

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 10, 2021

These payments should be clearly identified by the name and number assigned to this action. II. … To establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must prove that a policy, practice, or custom attributable to the municipality caused the constitutional injury. Id.

Crawford v. Lemon

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 28, 2023

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 … 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.

Finney v. Mabry

455 F. Supp. 756 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 30, 1978

Therefore, the procedures constituting the minimum assurance of due process were stated as: “(A) written notice of charges at least 24 hours prior to the hearing; (B) a qualified right to call witnesses; and (C) a written … These employees clearly stated that they were unaware of any lists being given to Mr. Martin. They were also unaware of any pressures being applied to them to vote a specific way either for guilt or innocence.

Ashley v. Hodges

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 8, 2021

City Defendants further argue that they are entitled to legislative and qualified immunity (Id., at 10–14). … Ashley’s claims of injury are too speculative to establish Article III standing. The factual allegations in Ms.

Crouch v. Master Woodcraft Cabinetry LLC

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

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). … If he is properly qualified, Mr.

Crouch v. Master Woodcraft Cabinetry LLC

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

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). … If he is properly qualified, Mr.

Hopman v. Union Pacific Railroad

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 30, 2022

Ill. 2003), a diabetic employee, who sometimes became unable to think clearly and care for himself at work, asked his employer for an accommodation of periodic breaks to check his blood-sugar levels, eat certain foods, … employee with depression and severe anxiety was not capable of performing the essential functions of his job, and “it would be unreasonable to require that TVA place plaintiff in a virtually stress-free environment and immunize

Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1

769 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 15, 1991

Clearly, the Court at that time did not view the settlement plans as something fluid, subject to constant negotiation and change. III. … It certainly does not qualify as an “enhancement” of the desegregation process.

Stallings v. Gibson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 8, 2022

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 … 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.

Cochran v. Boar's Head Provisions Company Inc

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 10, 2021

A “qualified individual” is a person with a qualifying disability who can “perform the essential functions of the employment position . . . with or without reasonable accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). … City of Hibbing, 271 F.3d 782, 784 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)), as well as “the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal

Arkansas Medical Society, Inc. v. Reynolds

819 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 20, 1993

To qualify for federal reimbursement, the Medicaid Act requires each state to submit its Medicaid plan to the federal government, specifically HCFA, for approval. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a. … Kizer, 758 F.Supp. 572, 576 (E.D.Cal.1990)). *822 With the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A), Congress established an unambiguous statutory obligation for states participating in the Medicaid program to establish

Yancey v. Faubus

238 F. Supp. 290 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 28, 1965

Federal subject matter jurisdiction is not questioned and has been established. … As indicated, section 1 of the Amendment establishes the Board and charges it with the duty of making reapportionments.

Dorn v. Kelley

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 17, 2020

No single factor is dispositive, but the movant must establish a threat of irreparable harm. Id. … Blankenship, that the plaintiff=s demotion from administrative segregation to punitive isolation was Anot the sort of deprivation that qualifies as >atypical and significant.=@ 100 F.3d 640, 642 (1996).

Wilson v. Missouri Pac. R.

58 F. Supp. 844 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 14, 1945

to that of the Arkansas act, is, in our opinion, to that effect: See 37 C.J., Limitations of Actions, Sec. 5, which reads: “A wide distinction exists between pure statutes of limitation and special statutory limitations qualifying … Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit, which at the time had under consideration Sec. 6 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, said: “The limitation of said section as to time in which the action may be maintained clearly