Case law

Walker-Swinton v. Philander Smith College

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 31, 2021

“Although employment discrimination cases are ‘often fact intensive and dependent on nuance in the workplace, they are not immune from summary judgment.’” Trierweiler v. … Mo. 2014) (finding “vague, unsupported complaint” does not qualify as protected activity), aff’d 793 F.3d 881, 887 (8th Cir. 2015).

Wortmann v. Social Security Administration

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 5, 2022

Wortmann clearly suffers from some degree of pain and limitation - largely from his back disorder. … An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify. Id. The ALJ focused on the “B” and “C” criteria of the listings. (Tr. 15-16.)

Bumpass v. Verizon Wireless

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 27, 2019

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Ms. … Mo. 2014) (finding “vague, unsupported complaint” does not qualify as protected activity), aff’d 793 F.3d 881, 887 (8th Cir. 2015).

Taylor v. Social Security Administration

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 27, 2020

Plaintiff clearly suffers from some limitation given the combination of his impairments. However, the objective medical records simply fail to support a claim of complete disability. … An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify. Id.

Maiden v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 24, 2020

Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), modified the general rule that an attorney’s error in a post-conviction proceeding do not qualify as cause for a default: [W]hen a State requires a prisoner … Maiden’s case, I find it is not contrary to clearly established federal law.

Micheal Williams v. Pine Bluff School District; Jennifer Barbaree, in her Official capacity as Superintendent of the Pine Bluff School District; Arnold Robertson, Jr., in his Individual capacity and in his Official capacity; Ricky Whitmore, Jr., in his Individual capacity and in his Official capacity; Patrick Lockett, in his Individual capacity and in his Official capacity; Charles Colen, Jr., in his Individual capacity and in his Official capacity; Sederick Charles Rice, in his Individual capacity and in his Official capacity; Christen Shelton-Farris, in her Individual capacity and in her Official capacity; and Bonita Corbin, in her Individual capacity and in her Official capacity

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 2, 2026

later, in early April of 2025.7 Plaintiff says the delay is justifiable because he was pursuing internal remedies with Defendants in the interim.8 The problem with this contention is that those internal remedies had clearly … Roth, . . . we explained that the dismissal of a government employee accompanied by a ‘charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in his community’ would qualify as something ‘the government

Flywheel Energy Production LLC v. Griffin

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 1, 2025

Second, the testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing established that many of the executed leases in the Fayetteville Shale limit or forbid deductions of post-production costs from royalties. … Sixth, Act 1024 of 2025 speaks clearly, removing the ambiguity in Arkansas law.

Baker v. APC Passe LLC

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

Baker does admit that “[o]ne incentive was clearly job preservation,” which is in itself a financial incentive (Id.). Further, Ms. … Further, the Court adds the qualifier, which it believes is appropriate based upon information provided by the parties, that the class is limited to care coordinator supervisors in Arkansas. Ms.

Wilkins v. Simmons Bank

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 9, 2023

That test would have shown clearly, one way or the other, whether application of his methodology in this case was sufficiently reliable. … And, without Olsen’s testimony, Watson has not established that class members can be clearly identified by reference to any available “objective criteria.” McKeage v.

Frazier v. Graves

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

The Court determined that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts in their amended complaint to overcome State Defendants’ assertion of sovereign immunity on plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief, and the Court denied … The Court granted the motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity filed by Jose Romero, M.D., Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Health, in his official capacity (Id., at 20-24).

Smith v. Doe

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 9, 2024

The Arkansas Supreme Court did not address the merits, holding Smith abandoned the argument at trial and the issue did not qualify for 1 In Acts of 2021, Act 931, § 1, the General Assembly amended Ark. … The Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law; nor was it an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Norwood v. Social Security Administration

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 15, 2021

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify. Id. … Plaintiff clearly suffers from some limitation given the combination of his impairments. However, the objective medical records simply fail to support a claim of complete disability.

Liberty Initiative Fund v. Thurston

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 13, 2022

historical skepticism of permitting the government to police the line between truth and falsity, and between valuable speech and drivel, we presumptively protect all speech, including false statements, in order that clearly … Plaintiffs repeat that the Supreme Court has established the right to compensate petition canvassers based upon the finding that the collection of signatures is an act of core political speech.

Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Rutledge

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 6, 2019

Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their argument that Act 619 is unconstitutional on its face as applied to pre-viability abortions performed in Arkansas because it clearly violates well-established Eighth Circuit and … Relevant to the issue of an established “floor of care,” prior to the challenged law, to be qualified to perform an abortion in Alabama, the physician had to either “have completed a residency or fellowship that included

Taylor v. Teletype Corp.

475 F. Supp. 958 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 29, 1979

Taylor apparently did not clearly understand how to compute ratios of certain groups of employees. On February 19, 1975, Mr. … Hill’s claim falls outside the time period covered by the prima facie case that plaintiffs have established.

Fairchild v. Lockhart

744 F. Supp. 1429 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 4, 1989

Fairchild’s case, he clearly — his performance clearly indicated that he was manufacturing this memory problem. … Fairchild’s competency has been established to the satisfaction of the Court.]

Bosch v. Thurman

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 28, 2024

Bosch adds something about being either a patient person or not a patient person, but what she said cannot be clearly deciphered from listening to the audio. See id. at 1:22:30–32. … Bosch’s counsel still maintained the position that the reason the letter qualifies as a policy is that the Superintendent is a policymaker.212 It is Ms. Bosch’s right to elect what legal theory she wants to pursue.

Griffin v. Wood

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

The Court clearly explained to Griffin that, “[a]t the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff cannot rest upon mere allegations and, instead, must meet proof with proof.” Id. at 1. … After the problem-solver responded that Griffin had been “evaluated by a qualified provider,” and there was “no supporting evidence in [his] records of [a bean] allergy,” Griffin timely filed his Step

CCD Holdings, LLC v. Wal Mart Stores Inc

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

Defendants argues that the term should include the qualifier “without solvent.” … CCD argues that Defendants’ third affirmative defense and their fourth counterclaim alleging unenforceability because of CCD’s inequitable conduct are baseless and fail to use “objective facts to establish intent of any

Bates v. Wright Medical Technology Inc

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 19, 2021

In connection with a motion filed under this provision, the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY shall bear the burden of establishing that good cause exists for the disputed information … I will hold in confidence and not disclose to anyone not qualified under the Protective Order, any CONFIDENTIAL OR ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY INFORMATION or any words, summaries, abstracts, or indices of CONFIDENTIAL