Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,912 results
1.02s
2025 Ark. 203 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2025
or the immunity of a government official[.]” … But as we have explained for more than 80 years, the county, city, and town language qualifies who may file an illegal-exaction claim; it does not limit what public entity (or private entity taking misspent public monies
Cited 0 timesPublished281 Ark. 395 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 13, 1984
On the other hand, our Court has held unconstitutional as special or local legislation a number of acts which clearly relate to the administration of justice. In Cannon v. … Of all areas of legislation, the administration of justice above all should be immune to the evils of discriminatory laws and pork-barreling which Amendment 14 was designed to end.
Cited 36 timesPublished307 Ark. 134 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 4, 1991
At trial, the trial court denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment, claiming immunity from tort liability under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-6-105 (1987). … services or benefits of a volunteer by reason of any act or omission of a qualified volunteer in connection with the volunteer except as follows: * * * (2) Where the qualified volunteer acts in bad faith or is guilty of
Cited 70 timesPublished540 S.W.3d 264 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 1, 2018
The parties agree that Burger King qualifies for the "sale-for-resale" exemption, that the manager meals were a withdrawal from stock, and that Burger King was required to report and remit taxes on the withdrawal. … The language of section (D)(1) clearly accounts for the goods given away in the condition they were purchased.
Cited 28 timesPublished238 Ark. 363 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 14, 1964
solely from the relationship of the citizen and his state established by state law. … S. 277, 283 , is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities clause.”
Cited 3 timesPublishedUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences v. Adams
354 Ark. 21 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 11, 2003
The Arkansas General Assembly established UAMS as “a part of the University of Arkansas . . . .” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-64-401 (Repl. 1996). … Clearly, UAMS is merely a department of the University of Arkansas and, as such, is not an entity that can sue or be sued. See Asaad-Faltas v. UAMS, 708 F.Supp. 1026 (E.D.
Cited 17 timesPublished407 S.W.3d 514 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 10, 2012
erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … Based upon the foregoing evidence, we cannot say that the circuit court’s award of $1,560,000 in punitive damages was clearly erroneous. Affirmed.
Cited 15 timesPublishedDuit Construction Co v. Arkansas State Claims Commission
476 S.W.3d 791 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 10, 2015
established that the ASCC statutes provide parties with due process. … of impartiality to which both are clearly entitled.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDavis v. Office of Child Support Enforcement
341 Ark. 349 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 18, 2000
We have held many times that although we review chancery cases de novo on the record, we will not reverse a finding of fact by the chancellor unless it is clearly erroneous. Slaton v. … SSI recipients, however, either never paid this “premium” or never paid enough into the system to qualify for SSD.
Cited 39 timesPublishedNational Bank of Commerce v. Quirk
323 Ark. 769 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 18, 1996
More significantly, Act 292 simply added the clause “except to the extent that they be covered by liability insurance” as qualifying an employee’s immunity. … Bush, supra, this Court recognized in 1988 that employees have only a qualified immunity and that actions can be maintained against them to the extent they are protected by insurance. 7.
Cited 30 timesPublished356 Ark. 208 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 19, 2004
Moreover, there was no evi-' dence to establish that the challenged findings impacted the trial in any respect. … These general motions did not address the issue of appellant’s statutory immunity. Because appellant failed to make a motion for a directed verdict on the issue of appellant’s immunity pursuant to Ark.
Cited 15 timesPublished2022 Ark. 32 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 17, 2022
We explained that although Martin raised sovereign immunity, “[b]ecause [Haas] has asserted that Act 633 violates qualified voters’ constitutional right to vote and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages … Some of these citations don’t support the propositions for which they are cited; for example, one case involved the interpretation of “qualified electors” and never discussed sovereign immunity. Barrett v.
Cited 3 timesPublished327 Ark. 600 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 17, 1997
This argument is clearly against the policy of the direct- action statute, and established caselaw. In Rogers v. Tudor Ins. … In this case, the Transcontinental insurance contract was “carried by” Tanda, not the immune City. Thus, Cherry fails to establish the first element of the statute.
Cited 20 timesPublished2022 Ark. 32 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 17, 2022
We explained that although Martin raised sovereign immunity, “[b]ecause [Haas] has asserted that Act 633 violates qualified voters’ constitutional right to vote and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages … Some of these citations don’t support the propositions for which they are cited; for example, one case involved the interpretation of “qualified electors” and never discussed sovereign immunity. Barrett v.
Cited 1 timesPublished500 S.W.3d 148 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 13, 2016
facilities limited immunity; providing that qualifying patients, as well as dispensary and cultivation facility agents, shall not be subject to criminal or civil penalties or other forms of discrimination … licensed in the state that he or she is suffering from a qualifying medical condition; establishing an initial list of qualifying medical conditions; directing the Department of Health to establish rules related
Cited 8 timesPublishedRodgers v. Southland Racing Corp.
247 Ark. 1115 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 2, 1970
This appeal is from a decree holding the act to be invalid as a grant of special privileges and immunities that do not equally belong to all citizens upon the same terms. Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 18. … Those considerations apply with even greater force to an establishment, such as a race track, where gam- bling is permitted.
Cited 5 timesPublishedSwanigan v. Ark. Dep't of Correction
2014 Ark. 196 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 1, 2014
Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit. Hanks v. Sneed, 366 Ark. 371, 235 S.W.3d 883 (2006), overruled on other grounds by Hardin v. Bishop, 2013 Ark. 395, ___ S.W.3d ___. … an exception to either sovereign immunity or statutory immunity where the claim did not allege officials violated clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge).
Cited 8 timesPublishedRodney Dale Harmon v. State of Arkansas
678 S.W.3d 390 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 7, 2023
The United States Supreme Court held that the “media ride-along” indeed violated the Wilsons’ Fourth Amendment rights, but that the officers had qualified immunity because the illegality of such conduct was not clearly … established at the time of the search.
Cited 5 timesPublishedArkansas Department of Human Services v. Estate of Hogan
314 Ark. 19 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 12, 1993
At a hearing where DHS, the trustee bank, and the guardian were present, DHS argued the Probate Court lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the trust was a “medicaid qualifying trust,” i.e., one which was not immune from … The jurisdiction of probate courts is established by Ark.
Cited 13 timesPublishedFireman's Insurance v. Arkansas State Claims Commission
301 Ark. 451 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 1990
Section 1 of Act 276 of 1955 abolished the “State Claims Commission” established by Act 462 of 1949 and established a new commission, the “Arkansas State Claims Commission,” which was declared in Section 3 to “have all the … The act creating the Claims Commission clearly creates it as an arm of the legislature, reporting solely to that body.
Cited 43 timesPublished
Ask Donna