Case law

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.

City of Malvern v. Jenkins

425 S.W.3d 711 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 31, 2013

Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Id. … The City maintains that the Jenkinses are clearly claiming negligence for the damage done to their culvert and that the damages they seek are tort damages and not those that ordinarily and naturally result from a taking and

Nikita Lee Mahoney, Kimberly Ann Snodgrass, Christopher Snodgrass, Detrick Brandon, Tina Marie Phares, and Dazarious Braggs, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Mark Derrick, in His Official Capacity as District Judge for the 23rd Judicial District of the State of Arkansas

2022 Ark. 27 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 10, 2022

Judicial Immunity Judicial immunity is an established defense that judges may raise when they are defendants in lawsuits concerning their judicial duties. Pierson v. … See Forrester, 484 U.S. at 225 (noting that judicial immunity is “a device for discouraging collateral attacks and thereby helping to establish appellate procedures as the standard system for correcting judicial error”)

State v. Johnson

360 S.W.3d 104 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 18, 2010

The agreement in the present case is clearly not a “pure plea agreement” or a statutory-immunity agreement. It falls squarely into the third category described above. … Clearly a promise of immunity approved by, or with the consent of, the court, should be upheld.

Mitchem v. Hobbs

2014 Ark. 233 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 2014

Because sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit, jurisdiction must be determined entirely from the pleadings. Bd. of Tr. v. Burcham, 2014 Ark. 61. … Appellant’s petition was clearly intended to control the actions of the director of the ADC and the parole board members, and he made no showing that sovereign immunity should not apply to those parties.

Verdier v. Verdier

364 Ark. 287 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 1, 2005

The parental-immunity doctrine was first established in Arkansas by this court in 1938. Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832 , 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938). … The final conclusion of this court was not to abrogate the doctrine, in toto, but to establish that an “exception to the parental-immunity doctrine is warranted when a direct-action suit against a motor vehicle liability

Washington County v. Board of Trustees

480 S.W.3d 173 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 4, 2016

. 845 (1886): In short, under a republican form of government, the whole property of the state is owned and held by the state for public- uses, and is not taxable, unless the state which owns and holds it for those uses clearly … The University of Arkansas as an Instrumentality of the State of Arkansas Having established that property owned by the state in this case is immune from ad valorem taxation under these facts, we must also, resolve- the specific

ASA HUTCHINSON, IN His OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS AND DR. CHARISSE CHILDERS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES v. LOGAN ARMSTRONG EMILY BALL RONALD BATES CYNTHIA EYIUCHE And KURT JOHNSEN

2022 Ark. 59 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 10, 2022

Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (“FPUC”) increased the amount of the weekly benefits received by qualified recipients by $300. 15 U.S.C. § 9023. … Nor do we reach whether sovereign immunity bars this action.

Low v. Insurance Co. of North America

364 Ark. 427 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 2005

If it were otherwise the corporation could not qualify as charitable.... … The Louisiana court went on to establish a balancing test, stating: Each case involving delayed notices must stand upon its own facts and circumstances.

Ark. State Police Ret. Sys. v. Sligh

2017 Ark. 209 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 30, 2017

Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit. Kelley v. Johnson, 2016 Ark. 266, 496 S.W.3d 346. … Although appellees indicated in their complaint that they were seeking both “legal and equitable” remedies, the nature of the relief sought was clearly for monetary damages, as even the writ of mandamus and the injunction

Washington Cty. Bd. of Ts

2016 Ark. 34 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 4, 2016

The University of Arkansas as an Instrumentality of the State of Arkansas Having established that property owned by the state in this case is immune from ad valorem taxation under these facts, we must also resolve … This raises in my mind a curious question: If the State has no power to impose an ad valorem tax on its own, and the counties clearly do, then what sovereign immunity, if any, can the State assert as a defense to paying

Steve's Auto Center of Conway, Inc., and Steven Gafner v. Arkansas State Police; Director William J. Bryant, Individually; And Capt. Alex Finger, Individually

592 S.W.3d 695 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 6, 2020

ASP is required by law to “establish, maintain, and enforce a towing rotation list to assist in clearing highways of motor vehicles” involved in accidents or abandoned on state highways. Ark. … Accordingly, this clearly violates the separation of powers. Ark. Const. art. 4, §§ 1, 2. This constitutional violation is patently unlawful and ultra vires.

Arkansas State Police Retirement System v. Sligh

516 S.W.3d 241 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 30, 2017

Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit. Kelley v. Johnson, 2016 Ark. 266, 496 S.W.3d 346. … Although appellees indicated in their complaint that they were seeking both “legal and equitable” remedies, the nature of the relief sought was clearly for monetary damages, as even the writ of mandamus and the injunction

Lenard v. Kelley

519 S.W.3d 682 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 18, 2017

the application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Here, Lenard’s allegation that he was erroneously convicted of a disciplinary infraction in 2014 does not establish that the ADC acted without statutory authority.

State v. Scott

4 Ark. 270 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1849

This is the strongest view that could be taken against the defendant, and this most clearly shows that it could not go into immediate operation. … established.

St. L., I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Berry

41 Ark. 509 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1883

And in the absence of a contrary intention, clearly expressed in the law authorizing it, the legal effect of a consolidation is to extinguish the constituent companies and to create a new corporation, with property, liabilities … Their exemption was qualified by their duties, and dependent upon them.

Burnette v. Perkins & Associates

343 Ark. 237 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 14, 2000

Clearly, attorney’s fees are allowable in a contract action. … Ultimately, Helms received a declaration by the court that his due-process rights had been violated, but received no damages due to a finding of qualified immunity.

Prince v. Ark. State Highway Comm'n

576 S.W.3d 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2019

Clearly, citizens are constitutionally permitted to sue the state for an illegal exaction. The question before us in this appeal is whether appellants' complaint states a *4 cause of action for an illegal exaction. … This is not sufficient to establish a claim for an illegal exaction. See Bowerman v. Takeda Pharm.

Leslie Miller, Inc. v. State

225 Ark. 285 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 4, 1955

The facts in these cases clearly show that the appellants are independent contractors. … An independent contractor is not clothed with governmental immunity solely because of his contractual relationship with the Federal Government.