Case law

Andrews v. Well Path

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

Dateless Inadequate-Medical-Care Claims Andrews does not provide exact dates for the only alleged constitutional violations that are not clearly barred by the statute of limitations. … Even if Andrews’s undated allegations occurred after May 23, 2021, and are not barred by the statute of limitations, he has failed to establish that Cowell, Dr. Beck, or Dr.

Millsap v. Social Security Administration

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 16, 2020

Millsap testified that her boss allows great flexibility on when she worked (she “lets me work as I can”), allows her to take breaks as needed, and provides a work area isolated from others to protect her weakened immune … An individual's statement as to pain or other symptoms shall not alone be conclusive evidence of disability as defined in this section; there must be medical signs and findings, established by medically acceptable clinical

Crouch v. Master Woodcraft Cabinetry LLC

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

Crouch was acting in loco parentis to the unborn child at issue and that the then- unborn child alternatively qualifies as a beneficiary on that basis (Id., at 2-3). … Nothing is to be taken as intended that is not clearly expressed.” Rhuland v. Fahr, 155 S.W.3d 2, 6–7 (Ark. 2004).

Griffin v. Syngenta Crop Protection AG

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 19, 2025

To qualify for a payment for a given relevant active ingredient, a distributor must source a certain percent of its purchases from Syngenta rather than from other manufacturers. … This test is applied when price- cutting is not the clearly predominate mechanism to exclude competition.

Daniels v. W&W-AFCO Steel LLC

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

Thus, when considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Id. … For an issue to qualify as precluded under collateral estoppel: the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior litigation; (2) that issue must have been actually litigated; (3) the

Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Rutledge

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 23, 2019

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 Supreme Court precedent holding that a woman may terminate … 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

Jackson v. Norris

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 23, 2020

The Court clearly understood that despite his “clinical” opinion that Jackson is “above the cut” for intellectual disability, Dr. … Macvaugh viewed Jackson’s comorbid conditions a roadblock to assessing Jackson’s adaptive functioning, Moore I clearly requires a different approach.

Ma v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Company

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

.; and qualified as an “employer” within the meaning and coverage of Title VII (Id., ¶¶ 9-10). Ms. … Ma’s alleged complaints to management—which management clearly received as evidenced by the investigation into Ms. Ma’s complaints—also represent statutorily protected activity. Thus, Ms. Ma’s rejection of Mr.

O'Dell v. Qualscript LLC

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

That presumption can be overcome if the economic realities test clearly and convincingly establishes an employer-employee relationship. Ms. … O’Dell is to show that the economic realities test clearly and convincingly establishes that an employer-employee relationship existed between Ms. O’Dell and QualScript. So we now move to that analysis. III.

Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 17, 2022

Might it be that the “firmly established” rule from Steel Co. … U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3)–(4) provide subject-matter jurisdiction over “any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any State law . . . of any right, privilege or immunity

Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District

716 F. Supp. 1162 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 27, 1989

Even if that were true, the Special Master’s Findings and Recommendations clearly indicate that interdistrict cooperation is required to remedy each district’s intradistrict violations. … Mandatory attendance zones should be established on a countywide bases.

Smith v. Crittenden County, Arkansas

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 15, 2024

Paragraph 17 of Crittenden County’s Statement of Undisputed Facts does say that the meeting took place on May 4, 2022, but this is clearly a scrivener’s error. … And that is even more apparent because there was a clearly intervening event between Mr. Smith’s protected activity and Mr.

White Hall Pharmacy LLC v. Doctor's Orders RX Inc

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 20, 2019

The Supreme Court has determined that Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), “protects qualifying unregistered trademarks and that the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under [section] … Here, because the Eighth Circuit has not clearly abandoned the presumption, the Court will apply the presumption.

Holt v. Sarver

309 F. Supp. 362 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 18, 1970

The actions of defendants have deprived members of the plaintiff class of rights, privileges and immunities secured to them by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of … Clearly, a man who has clung to the bars all night is in poor condition to work the next day. Conditions in the barracks are worsened by the prevalent consumption of liquor and beer and by the use of drugs.

Walker v. Lockhart

598 F. Supp. 1410 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 6, 1984

At the habeas hearing Walker’s former counsel who had assisted in representing him at trial clearly testified that he was not intimidated. [H. II, 369, 500.] … Finally, Captain Paul McDonald, a qualified ballistics expert, testified that the bullet removed from Officer Vaughan’s body matched the four-inch barrel .38 caliber Smith & Wesson, [R.

Watkins v. Lawrence County, Arkansas

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

Whitley v. Baptist Health

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 13, 2019

Whitley says the other driver and its insurer qualify as either payors or persons. The aIZ< payor road doesn’t go far. … Some of the agreements do clearly renounce an intent to create third- party beneficiary rights in a covered patient.

Lacy v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 1, 2023

The Arkansas Supreme Court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). … The Arkansas Supreme Court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Rankin v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 22, 2023

The Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law; or an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). … The Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law; or an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Moore v. Forrest City School District

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

if the plaintiff shows that: “(1) [he] is a member of a protected group; (2) [he] was qualified for [his] position; (3) [he] was discharged; and (4) the discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference … Moore has established a prima facie case of racial discrimination. He pretty clearly fails to satisfy the fourth 103 411 U.S. 792 (1973); see also Carter v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch.