Case law

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.

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. 50 · 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.

Deitsch v. Tillery

309 Ark. 401 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 26, 1992

Four elements are needed to establish liability. … We agree with the trial court that such actions simply do not amount to established policy or custom.

Nielsen v. Berger-Nielsen

347 Ark. 996 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 14, 2002

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. … Code Ann. § 16-22-310 , an attorney-immunity statute.

Wometco Services, Inc. v. Gaddy

272 Ark. 452 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 11, 1981

On appeal Wometco Services raises three constitutional arguments: The laws violate the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. … We have long regulated dance halls and similar public establishments where juke boxes may lead to unwholesome conditions. Brown v. Cheney, 233 Ark. 920 , 350 S.W. 2d 184 (1961), cert. den. 369 U.S. 796 (1962).

Arkansas Public Defender Commission v. Greene County Circuit Court

343 Ark. 49 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 7, 2000

Clearly, the order that Stidham’s attorney’s fees be paid by the Commission is an act that will tap the State’s treasury. … Our cases establish that the right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further. . . .

Hardin v. Bishop

430 S.W.3d 49 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 2013

The parties clearly raised the agency issue in motions before the circuit court and attached exhibits in support. The parties also argued the issue to the court at the summary- judgment hearing. … This court reversed, holding that, as a matter of law, Taylor’s degree of control over Willis was not enough to qualify as an agent. Id.

Wallace v. Broyles

331 Ark. 58 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1998

Once the moving party has established a prima facie entidement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Id. … From the foregoing evidence, a fact issue clearly arises concerning whether Weber, Harper’s Food Stores and the named defendant-doctors were negligent in the illegal and careless manner in which they dispensed controlled

St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. State

120 Ark. 182 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 4, 1915

peace of Washington County in which it was charged that the appellant railroad company had failed and refused to comply with Order No. 3085 of the Railroad Commission of Arkansas, which said order required appellant to establish … Moreover,, the use of the qualifying words bona fide is significant.

Patterson v. Temple

27 Ark. 202 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1871

by law shall ever be reduced by the establishment of any new county or counties to less than six hundred square miles ; nor shall any new county be hereafter established which shall contain less than six hundred square miles … presumption that every State statute, the objects and provisions of which, are among the acknowledged powers of legislation, is valid and constitutional, and that presumption is not to be overcome unless the contrary is clearly

Memphis & L. R. Railway Co. v. Berry

41 Ark. 436 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1883

In order to sustain its case the appellant must establish both clearly. Exemptions from taxation cannot be sustained upon doubtful implications. … The established rule of construction in such cases is, that rights, privileges and immunities, not expressly, granted, are reserved. There is no safety to the public interest in any other rule.

Miller County v. Opportunities, Inc.

334 Ark. 88 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 9, 1998

Applying the hospital cases by analogy, Meadowbrook Place does not qualify for the exemption. … Smith’s testimony, the Trial Court also considered three prior orders dealing with the immunity of Meadowbrook Place.

Casey Reed v. Ken Yang; Grant County Board of Election Commissioners; Saline County Board of Election Commissioners; Geral Harrison, in His Capacity as Grant County and Circuit Clerk; Doug Curtis, in His Capacity as Saline County Clerk; Joseph Wood, in His Capacity as Chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas; And Cole Jester, in His Capacity as Arkansas Secretary of State

2026 Ark. 32 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2026

We review declaratory-judgment actions with a clearly-erroneous standard. Haile v. Johnston, 2016 Ark. 52, 482 S.W.3d 323. … First, I would dismiss Yang’s claims against the Secretary of State because of sovereign immunity.

UNIVERSITY OF ARK. FOR MED. SCIEN. v. Adams

117 S.W.3d 588 · 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 Assaad-Faltas v. UAMS, 708 F.Supp. 1026 (E.D.Ark.1989), aff'd 902 F.2d 1572 (8th Cir.1990).

Cundiff v. Crider

303 Ark. 120 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 16, 1990

The majority opinion states that there may be a common law qualified immunity for performing the duty imposed by law in this case. … There is another statute which is clearly applicable but not mentioned in the majority opinion. It is Ark.

Parette v. State

301 Ark. 607 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 26, 1990

We do not view the inquiry as relating to misconduct clearly probative of untruthfulness as argued by the appellant. … The state objected, and the court sustained the objection “unless you [counsel for the appellant] attempt to qualify him as an expert.”

Felton v. Rebsamen Medical Center, Inc.

373 Ark. 472 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 22, 2008

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. See id. … Here, Rebsamen clearly pled the defense of charitable immunity.

Stephanie Potter Barrett v. John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State

593 S.W.3d 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 23, 2020

4 pursuant to amendment 80, section 16(D) is not clearly erroneous. … Read together, Amendment 80 requires that a judicial candidate be a qualified elector; Article 3, section 1 requires that the qualified elector be a lawfully registered voter; and the General Assembly has established that

Arkansas State Medical Board v. Leipzig

299 Ark. 71 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 30, 1989

Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988), also negates the argument that the injunction violates the separation of powers and immunity provisions in the Arkansas Constitution. … Refusal to permit evidentiary depositions would clearly be a due process violation. Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n., 109 Cal. App. 2d 54 , 240 P.2d 57 (1952).

Robert Taylor v. Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board and Arkansas Division of Correction

2025 Ark. 176 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 13, 2025

The court, however, should dismiss the appeal because sovereign immunity bars Taylor’s underlying claims against the State. 1 When sovereign immunity bars a lawsuit against the State, the circuit court does … The majority confuses how dismissals and the qualifiers, “with prejudice” and “without prejudice,” operate.