Case law

Stewart v. Stephens

244 F. Supp. 982 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 23, 1965

The exercise of peremptory challenges of the prosecuting attorney in this cas.e clearly did not make out' a case of discrimination. … The evidence falls far short of establishing that racial discrimination was practiced in the selection of the jury panel, as petitioner contends.

Meade v. Ethicon, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 2, 2020

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). … The proponent of the expert testimony has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the admissibility of the expert’s testimony. Id. at 757-58.

Vigoro Indus. v. CLEVELAND CHEMICAL OF ARKANSAS

866 F. Supp. 1150 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 4, 1994

A threshold issue is whether any, all or part of the six categories of information labeled "trade secrets" by the Plaintiff qualifies *1162 as such under the Act. … In regard to Vigoro's expectancy of continued relationships with its customers and of continued relationships with its at-will employees, the evidence clearly establishes that Cleveland Chemical and the Messrs.

Harris v. Lockhart

755 F. Supp. 850 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 22, 1991

And Judge Arnold concluded for the Eighth Circuit panel that “no cause for th[at] default is suggested that would qualify under the doctrine of Wainwright v. … By so doing, he forfeited his right to appeal under established precedents.

Staszak v. Yates

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 23, 2021

The “receipts” in the record are not “new evidence,” and come nowhere close to establishing that Staszak is actually innocent. … Staszak has failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that his § 2255 remedy, which he unsuccessfully pursued in Staszak II, was “inadequate or ineffective.”

Marshall v. Georgia Pacific Corp.

484 F. Supp. 629 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 16, 1980

Let the record clearly reflect that it was not this remark alone but it was the accumulation of derogatory remarks by Mr. … In answering that query the court refers to the Code of Professional Responsibility which establishes the speech standard and conduct standard which an attorney should observe.

V. D. Anderson Co. v. Helena Cotton Oil Co.

117 F. Supp. 932 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 29, 1953

Interrogatories should not be disallowed for irrelevancy unless the inquiry is clearly outside the borders of the case. … In one of their briefs the defendants say in this connection: “The materiality of the information so sought is this: A patentee must, to qualify for a patent, be the original, as well as the first inventor.

Ward

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 26, 2025

Moreover, Ward has not established that the ISO and substitution order qualify for certification under the statutory criteria. A. … Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 206 (2025), four are clearly inapplicable here.

Al-Barr v. Garrett

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 7, 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. … To succeed on his claims here, Plaintiff would need to establish the unlawfulness of the length of his sentence considering he was prevented from applying “time earned credits,” which is the type of claim barred by Heck

Washam v. BNSF Railway Company

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

Neale’s anticipated testimony, BNSF had the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Neale’s testimony was admissible under Rule 702. Marmo v. … To satisfy the reliability requirement, the party offering the expert testimony “must show by a preponderance of the evidence both that the expert is qualified to render the opinion and that the methodology underlying

Devose v. Norris

867 F. Supp. 836 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 3, 1994

The Equal Protection Clause forbids a prosecutor from using peremptory challenges to exclude otherwise qualified persons from the petit jury solely on account of their race. Batson, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . … In order to establish an .equal protection violation, “a defendant must first establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in selection of the jury panel.” United States v.

Delta Pride Catfish, Inc. v. Marine Midland Business Loans, Inc.

767 F. Supp. 951 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 19, 1991

The undisputed facts in this case clearly demonstrate that the term “broker,” as used in the trucking industry to denote the relationship between ATB and truckers, does not establish a true “broker” or “agency” relations … Delta Pride cannot establish ownership rights in the proceeds from ATB’s accounts receivable.

O'Neal v. Self

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 27, 2021

Undisputed evidence clearly shows that Ms. O’Neal’s doctor said she couldn’t perform the security officer position. Indeed, Ms. … O’Neal cannot establish that she was a qualified individual for either the security officer position she held or for the mobile-patrol position she sought.

Vigoro Industries, Inc. v. Cleveland Chemical Co. of Arkansas, Inc.

866 F. Supp. 1150 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 4, 1994

Crisp clearly commanded immense loyalty from his salespeople and the other employees. They viewed him as a “winner” and tied their futures to him on a personal basis. … In regard to Vigoro’s expectancy of continued relationships with its customers and of continued relationships with its at-will employees, the evidence clearly establishes that Cleveland Chemical and the Messrs.

Strong v. United States

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

It describes as “persuasive” the United States’ argument “that Plaintiff has not [shown] by [means of] a qualified medical expert how any alleged delay in treatment caused him injury from which he did not already suffer … In its Statement of Material Facts, the United States clearly asserted: 33. The fact that a patient is confined to an institutional setting affects the prescription of successful orthopedic management.

Paul Hardeman, Inc. v. Arkansas Power & Light Company

380 F. Supp. 298 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 14, 1974

The reaction, clearly inferable from the evidence, was basically subjective, emotional and visceral. … But once it is established that bids for that size contract vary to the extent of 30%, any bid in that class which varies 50% or more demands investigation, for clearly a mistake of some kind has been made.

Green v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 22, 2022

loyalties that the Supreme Court has said is not enough to establish an actual conflict. … I did not want to hear how qualified she was because I knew she was going to be qualified as an expert. (Id. at 141:1-7).

Storall Manufacturing Co. v. United States

585 F. Supp. 785 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 9, 1984

This question, in turn, stems from a problem of definition: Do pickups, on which Storall’s boxes are installed, qualify as “passenger automobiles” or are they “automobile trucks”? … Clearly the excise tax is thereby imposed upon the sales price of items at the moment of and as sold by manufacturers, producers or importers.

Rector v. Clifford

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 29, 2022

The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish that there is a genuine issue to be determined at trial. See Prudential Ins. Co. v. … Mongold dispute whether Silas qualifies as a “domestic animal,” as contemplated AMI 1602 and Arkansas law (Id., at 3). Separate defendants Mr. Clifford and Ms.

Reed v. Arkansas Highway Police

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 17, 2021

A district court, therefore, is not required to divine the litigant's intent and create claims that are not clearly raised, and it need not conjure up unpled allegations to save a complaint. … was qualified for her job; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the facts give rise to an inference of unlawful gender discrimination.