Case law

Anglin v. Johnson Regional Medical Center

375 Ark. 10 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 2008

He also stated that JRMC’s charter limits it to charitable purposes and establishes it as a not-for-profit entity. Mr. … Of the eight factors listed in George, three are clearly established based upon evidence in the record.

Cross v. Arkansas Livestock & Poultry Commission

328 Ark. 255 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 28, 1997

In its order, the trial court found that because Appellant could not establish the existence of a contract for his employment with the Commission, it necessarily followed that he could not establish the required element that … Clearly, the first element of the tort may be proved by demonstrating either a valid contractual relationship or a business expectancy.

Arkansas Tech University v. Link

341 Ark. 495 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 2000

doctrine established by this court in the case of Toan v. … Cheney is clearly distinguishable from the present case in three respects. First, as previously noted, this court did not directly address the issue of sovereign immunity in that case.

Archer v. Sisters of Mercy Health System, St. Louis, Inc.

375 Ark. 523 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2009

Am., 364 Ark. 427, 440 , 220 S.W.3d 670, 680 (2005) (certain charitable entities are immune from tort liability). … It is difficult under these facts to accept the proposition that the Liability Pool qualifies as a new party, brought into this matter and burdened with a new obligation imposed by virtue of Act 750.

Ikani v. Bennett

284 Ark. 409 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 21, 1985

If any substantial evidence exists tending to establish an issue of fact in favor of that party, it is error for the court to take the case from the jury. Dildine v. … The immunity does not protect a defendant from publication to persons other than those whose hearing is reasonably believed to be necessary and useful for the furtherance of that interest.

Parish v. Pitts

244 Ark. 1239 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 3, 1968

Clearly the operation of a garbage truck is governmental by this test. Kirksey v. City of Fort Smith, 227 Ark. 630 , 300 S. W. 2d 257 (1957). … Having determined as we have here that a rule established by precedent no longer gives a just result it must then be determined whether the rights of those who have justifiably relied upon the established precedents are of

Tripcony v. Arkansas School for the Deaf

403 S.W.3d 559 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 3, 2012

Watson in their individual capacities based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … She contends that her termination was wrongful because it was in|9violation of the Reduction Policy and, thus, was in violation of a clearly adopted public policy.

Hendrickson v. State

285 Ark. 462 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 29, 1985

Yarbrough was granted immunity from prosecution in return for his testimony. Norma Foster was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to life. Her conviction has recently been reversed. Foster v. … Once the right is invoked, a valid waiver cannot be established by showing only that the accused responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, at 484 (1981) .

Born v. Hosto & Buchan, PLLC

372 S.W.3d 324 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 17, 2010

Fraud On appeal, the Born debtors contend that the circuit judge erred in dismissing their fraud claim because (1) fraud is clearly exempted from the immunity statute, and (2) they “alleged several misrepresentations of material … However, these statements were not clearly alleged in the complaint.

GARLAND COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; PROFESSIONAL PROBATION SERVICES, LLC; SOUTHWEST PROBATION SERVICES, INC.; DESIREE SKEYA; AND BRADY HARMON v. JOHN MERCER

2026 Ark. 76 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 2026

Conclusion Mercer has alleged facts that, if proven, could establish an unauthorized governmental exaction. At the pleading stage, that is sufficient to avoid dismissal on sovereign-immunity grounds. … Haas, 2018 Ark. 283, at 8, 556 S.W.3d 509, 515 (“Because appellee has asserted that Act 633 violates qualified voters’ constitutional right to vote and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages, this action

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. State

312 Ark. 481 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 5, 1993

immunity did not apply. … It was clearly wrong for the Trial Court to assess a probation fee against DHS. Section 9-27-330 does not authorize the assessment of a probation fee against a custodian.

Eastling v. State

69 Ark. 189 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 30, 1901

No state shall make or enforce any lay which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor … qualified electors.

Gillioz v. Kincannon, Judge

213 Ark. 1010 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 25, 1948

Any nonresident person, firm, partnership, general or limited, or any corporation not qualified under the Constitution and Laws of this state as. to doing business herein, who shall do any business or perform any character … It is today established that the true basis for jurisdiction by constructive service on a nonresident under such circumstances is the fact of doing acts or causing them to* be done, in the state, the acts being of the type

Merchants Bonding Co. v. Starkey

337 Ark. 229 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 15, 1999

She posted a $5,000.00 bond in order to qualify. The second guardianship was opened in El Paso County, Texas, on June 19, 1989. Ms. Starkey being the ward, Ms. … Before she qualified as guardian in the Texas guardianship proceeding, Ms. Kennedy was required to post a bond in the sum of $50,000.00.

Conway v. Martin

499 S.W.3d 209 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 22, 2016

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 to the processing of applications for … about the medical cannabis program; setting certain limitations on the use of medical cannabis by qualifying patients; establishing an affirmative defense for the medical use of cannabis; establishing registration and operation

Pledger v. Bosnick

306 Ark. 45 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 10, 1991

not clearly foreshadowed, then the decision need not be applied retroactively, otherwise it must. … A review of the extensive historical discussion in Davis will clearly show that the Doctrine of Intergovernmental Tax Immunity has been applied for decades.

West Memphis School District No. 4 v. Circuit Court of Crittenden County

316 Ark. 290 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 7, 1994

The court further found that the defendants were not absolutely immuned from liability, that the Smiths had plead sufficient facts to establish an intentional tort, and that the claims of negligence could be asserted if the … What § 21-9-301 establishes is an immunity defense. That does not mean that the circuit court is without jurisdiction to hear a motion to dismiss on statutory immunity grounds.

Jasper School District No. 1 of Newton County v. Cooper

441 S.W.3d 11 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 25, 2014

immunity. … Cooper’s protected property right in her continued employment when he removed her as the Oark principal and transferred her to Kingston without a hearing,” and therefore, Saylors was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes, & Lerach, LLP v. State

342 Ark. 303 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 12, 2000

As will be seen below, the evidence here falls short of establishing a strong showing of entitlement or compelling circumstances. … waiver of immunity.

Weatherford v. State

286 Ark. 376 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 1, 1985

In contrast to Berkemer, Weatherford was not asked what he had had to drink and nothing was offered by the state in the form of incriminating statements in establishing the charge of driving while intoxicated. … The protections of the Fifth Amendment do not extend to demonstrative, physical tests, but are intended to immunize the defendant from providing the state with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature.