Case law

Williams v. Day

412 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 31, 1976

Clearly, nonrenewal standing alone does not constitute the deprivation of an interest in liberty. [Cases cited.] … It was clearly a permissible decision well within the board’s discretion.

Burton v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 18, 2025

Assuming that lost mail qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling, Mr. … .”15 “The question under [the] 14 A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state court either “arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question

Richardson v. Sugg

325 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 8, 2004

Although I have found against him on those points, his belief was clearly not unreasonable. … For instance, in a firing case, the plaintiff would have to show that: (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified to do the job; (3) he was terminated; and (4) the employer continued to try to fill the

Watkins v. Lawrence County, Arkansas

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 12, 2021

Defendants respond that lay witnesses can offer opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 so long as it is: “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness … Defendants also assert that the testimony of non-plaintiff landowners is relevant to establish that any flooding suffered by plaintiffs is the same or similar to that suffered by non-parties and to establish that plaintiffs

Mays v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

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

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. … Plaintiff’s claims as currently pled do not establish deliberate indifference on the part of Defendants Burton, Eason, McKane, or the CO who took Plaintiff to the Lieutenant’s office.

McDowell v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

575 F. Supp. 1007 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 29, 1983

Jackson was qualified as a heavy duty mechanic. 300. … Amos by her own admission has failed to establish that she was qualified to complete the training session scheduled for the opening of Store No. 258.

Ford v. Lockhart

861 F. Supp. 1447 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 30, 1994

The Court finds that Ford has established cause for the default. … At the evidentiary hearing, two criminal defense attorneys qualified as experts testified that Cook’s assistance fell below minimum standards of competence.

Jeffers v. Tucker

839 F. Supp. 612 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 2, 1993

Clearly not. … This is clearly an affirmative action theory.

Jackson v. Lay

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 10, 2023

Establishing retaliatory animus is crucial to a plaintiff’s retaliation claim. See Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996). See also Bitzan v. … As such, Plaintiff has failed to establish retaliatory animus. Accordingly, his allegations of retaliation fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Holmes

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 24, 2026

Holmes’s petition is clearly time barred, I will not address Respondent’s proposed alternative grounds for dismissal. Mr. … Holmes’s failure to establish gateway actual innocence sufficient to excuse his time-barred claims means that he cannot make the “extraordinarily high” showing that would be required to establish a free-standing

Taylor v. Methodist Family Health Inc

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 6, 2023

Taylor is “a qualified individual” under the ADA.30 A. … Taylor doesn’t plausibly allege that she is a “qualified individual” as required for an ADA disability-discrimination claim.39 A qualified individual is someone “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform

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

237 F. Supp. 2d 988 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 13, 2002

Clearly then, the evidence shows that the presently approved court educational plan, by itself, will not impact the achievement gap. … Rather, those two decisions, read together, clearly require the trial court to base such a determination on specific facts that: (1) establish a direct causal link between the achievement gap and the prior system of de jure

Lewis v. Pulaski County Sheriff's Office

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

Decisions and actions regarding the healthcare services provided to inmates were the sole responsibility of qualified healthcare personnel, and under the Sheriff’s policies, only qualified healthcare personnel may evaluate … To establish that a denial of medical care rises to the level of a constitutional violation, an inmate must establish deliberate indifference. Id.

Watt v. United States

123 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 13, 1954

S., D.C.Cal., 84 F.Supp. 820 , wherein it was said: “In waiving its sovereign immunity and consenting to be sued, the United States fixed and bounded the area of its liability. … “Since the officers and employees of the United States here clearly and admittedly acted beyond the scope of their authority, there can be no liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act. * * * ” 84 F.Supp. at pages 821-823

Pambianchi v. Arkansas Tech University

95 F. Supp. 3d 1101 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 26, 2015

Analysis To establish her Title VII discrimination claim, Ms. … Direct evidence “must be ‘strong’ and must ‘clearly point[] to the presence of an illegal motive’ for the adverse action.” Bone, 686 F.3d at 953 (quoting Griffith, 387 F.3d at 736 ).

Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Insurance

492 F. Supp. 933 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 27, 1980

At all times pertinent hereto the defendant, Standard Abstract, was the duly qualified, authorized and acting agent of LTIC. 3. … Since the recovery is less than the amount for which it sued, Red Lobster clearly is not entitled to penalty and attorneys’ fees under Ark. Stat.Ann. § 66-3238. Cassady v. United Ins.

I Square Management LLC v. McGriff Insurance Services Inc

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 16, 2021

Examples include express agreement, long established relationships of entrustment in which the agent clearly appreciates the duty of giving advice, additional compensation apart from premium payments, and the agent … At a meeting in early 2017, Pierron and his colleague, Nick Hall, pitched the McGriff agency to I Square as being more qualified, more sophisticated, and having experience that better qualified McGriff to handle I Square

Ayers v. Norris

43 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 31, 1999

Instead of being subjected to the same rules as nonprisoners, inmates who would otherwise qualify for in forma pauperis status must now pay the filing fees up front. … Section 1915(g) makes no provision for the merits of an indigent prisoner’s filings; it does not even grant courts the discretion to hear claims that are clearly meritorious.

Wild Cinemas of Little Rock, Inc. v. Bentley

499 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 17, 1980

The State argues the inclusion of nudity as a basis for obscenity is not unconstitutionally overbroad because nudity is qualified by the three prongs of the Miller test found in the statute. … Yet such a photograph clearly fits the definition of the statute and would be obscene if a jury could be found to agree that the three-prong test is met.

Capital Equipment, Inc. v. Cnh America, LLC

471 F. Supp. 2d 951 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 28, 2006

Clearly, NHC is the party with superior bargaining power and Capital the party for whose benefit the AFPA was enacted. … Clearly, NHC could not have used the contract to require Capital to release its statutory claims under the AFPA.