Case law

Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. PULASKI COUNTY SP. SCH.

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.

Hopkins v. Jegley

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 22, 2020

Sovereign Immunity Under The Eleventh Amendment Defendants also previously raised claims under the Eleventh Amendment (Dkt. No. 22, at 18). … That link is not established by the language of the Medical Records Mandate, nor is it established by any evidence in the record.

Holland v. Bordelon

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

for all of the hours worked by her and the class members and all monies or time that should have been paid to them; certification of, and proper notice to, together with an opportunity to opt-out of the litigation, all qualifying … Department of Labor and federal precedent established under the [FLSA] in interpreting and applying the provisions of the Act and Rule 010.14-100 through -113, except to the extent a different interpretation is clearly

CEC Controls Company, INC. v. H&H Electric, INC.

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

The language of Section 10.4 does not somehow immunize Huffman from a breach-of-contract suit in the event of early termination of the Huffman-H & H Agreement—even where this is a downstream effect of the termination of … Together, these two points establish quite clearly that Huffman is promoting the wrong understanding of Section 10.4.81 H & H argues that, pursuant to Section 10.4 of the Huffman-H & H Agreement, H & H should

Enviro Tech Chemical Services Inc v. Safe Foods Corporation

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 15, 2022

Cir. 2019) (“A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.”); see also Oct. 4, 2022 Hr’g Tr. at 18:13–19. 21 ModernaTx, Inc. v. … The Court believes this to clearly be a scrivener’s error and therefore omitted the period from the quotation. 28 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 1–2; Def.’s Claim Construction Br.

Hatch v. Optum Services Inc

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 11, 2022

The Agreement’s language and the circumstances surrounding it do not establish the necessary intent.62 So Optum’s third-party beneficiary theory fails. B. … allegation of concerted action that comes anywhere close to the type of concerted action that has qualified for equitable estoppel in Maryland.

Yasevich v. Heritage Company Inc

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

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. … In determining whether an individual qualifies as an employer, courts “look to the economic realities of the circumstances rather than the technical common law concepts of agency.”

Hopman v. Union Pacific Railroad

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 30, 2021

Counsel are to qualify their witnesses as expert witnesses in certain areas through questioning and then may proceed to ask questions of the witness appropriate for qualified experts; the Court’s preference is … Weatherford’s testimony by deposition and establishes to the Court’s satisfaction that she is an unavailable witness, then Mr.

Bakhaty v. CHI St Vincent Hot Springs

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 3, 2025

Vincent Hot Springs was previously a Mercy hospital, see infra note 66, and “courts have routinely found that Mercy Hospital entities qualify for the religious-organization exemption from Title VII.” Burlison v. … But this argument runs headlong into well-established Arkansas precedent pegging a slander action’s accrual date to the date of publication.83 And Parkman v. Hastings, the sole case on which Dr.

Hampton v. Wells Fargo Bank NA

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 15, 2022

Hampton is arguing that his claim did not accrue until he discovered the injury, Arkansas law clearly forecloses that argument. … Defendants have sufficiently established that Mr. Hampton’s unjust enrichment claim is time-barred. Mr. Hampton has not carried his burden of establishing an applicable tolling provision. Mr.

King v. Marion Arkansas, City of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 3, 2020

“It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). … Finally, “Section 1983 provides a cause of action for ‘the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ by any person acting ‘under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation

Frazier v. Graves

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 19, 2020

A preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary remedy, and the burden of establishing the propriety of an injunction is on the movant.” Watkins Inc. v. … Even acknowledging that AD 19-34 stipulates release is a non-grievable issue, plaintiffs’ grievances in the record clearly demonstrate additional concerns raised by plaintiffs regarding COVID-19 besides requests for release

Little Rock Cardiology Clinic, P.A. v. Baptist Health

573 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 29, 2008

That statute prohibited insurers from using monetary incentives or penalties to affect a health plan beneficiary’s choice of health care provider, and it required that every qualified health care provider who is willing to … Clearly, a heart bypass is not a substitute for an appendectomy, and neither one is a substitute for the surgical repair of a gunshot wound.

Elite Autos LLC v. Sparks Motors LLC

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 28, 2020

As we have put it, restrictions on personal jurisdiction “are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. … All of Defendant’s conduct at issue in those allegations pretty clearly occurred in Utah.

Entergy Arkansas LLC v. Thomas

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

[interstate] commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.’” South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 2080, 2091 (2018) (quoting Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 476 (2005); Pike v. … In its federal court challenge, EAL argued, among other things, that federal law preempted the APSC’s Cost Recovery Rider decision and that the “APSC’s orders inflicted immediate injury by establishing a precedent intended

Hopkins v. Jegley

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 5, 2021

Sovereign Immunity Under The Eleventh Amendment Defendants also previously made arguments under the Eleventh Amendment (Dkt. No. 22, at 18). … That link is not established by the language of the Medical Records Mandate, nor is it established by any evidence in the record.

Griego v. Lennox Industries Inc

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

Griego does not brief an ADA discrimination claim based on what he clearly believes were discriminatory comments made by supervisors, including Mr. Prine’s comment that Mr. Griego suffered from “retardation.” … Griego failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In Evans v.

Sierra Club v. Entergy Arkansas Inc

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 30, 2020

The Supreme Court has “repeatedly held that procedural rules, including time bars, cabin a court’s power only if Congress has ‘clearly state[d]’ as much.” Id. at 409 (citations omitted). … But where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs.” McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992).

Dobbs v. United States

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 5, 2023

Throughout trial, the “gush” was variously qualified as “big,” “large,” or “sudden.” … Powell was not qualified to testify about the cause of this dizziness (and because Mr.

Vilonia School District v. M S

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 1, 2019

Code Ann. § 6-41-216 (e)(1) (“An individual serving as a qualified hearing officer under this section shall have the power to issue subpoenas and to bring before him or her as a witness any person in this state.”); Arkansas … The Hearing Officer concluded that “when a student with a disability clearly does not pose a threat of harm to herself or others, school personnel should first implement the behavioral interventions contained in the student