Case law

In re Pitchford

265 Ark. 752 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 21, 1979

As to the Fourteenth Amendment, in the same case the Court commented: The right to practice in state courts is not a privilege or immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. … State Board of Law Examiners, 438 F. 2d 699 (1971), the Circuit Court of Appeals (in affirming the district court) stated: The principle is firmly established that the judicial branch of the government, acting through the

United States Tobacco Co. v. Martin

304 Ark. 119 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 17, 1990

tax immunity for activities commonly associated with maintaining a business operation. … There is a presumption in favor of the taxing power of the State and the claimant has the burden of establishing the right to an exemption beyond a reasonable doubt. Heath v.

Peterson v. Jefferson Cnty. Cir. Ct.

2014 Ark. 228 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 2014

The two-part test for judicial immunity established by Stump, 435 U.S. 349, requires that we determine whether the judges named by appellant in his petition for declaratory judgment had subject-matter jurisdiction to act … Clearly, the judges had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the pleadings filed by appellant and to render a decision in their judicial capacities. Accordingly, the judges were entitled to judicial immunity.

Weiss v. McFadden

356 Ark. 123 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 19, 2004

In bench trials, the standard of review on appeal is whether the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Carwell Elevator Co., Inc. v. … The express terms of § 26-51-404(b)(24)(A) clearly state that nonemployment-related retirement plans are covered under IRS Code § 72, while the express terms of § 26-51-404(b)(24)(B) clearly state that employment-related

Scherrer v. State

294 Ark. 227 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 19, 1988

Ivey’s and Harrison’s testimony essentially established that Scherrer raped her, cut her throat, and then put her body in a nearby canal. … Other evidence introduced at trial establishes that Ivey simply witnessed the crime and then failed to inform the police.

Doe v. Baum

348 Ark. 259 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 18, 2002

Moreover, the language included in the Program document itself does not waive the immunity afforded to either Baum or FLSD by the immunity statute; rather, that language expressly preserves immunity under the Program. … Code Ann. § 6-19-105 and clearly intended Ark. Code Ann. § 21-9-301 as a substitute. Ark.

Freeman v. Rushton

360 Ark. 445 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 27, 2005

. § 28-65-204 (a) and in our long-established caselaw. … The natural-parent preference referred to by appellant derives both from our long-established caselaw in custody matters and from Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-204 (a).

McDonald v. Pettus

337 Ark. 265 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 15, 1999

Pettus, and even if they did, the facts taken as true did not “rise to the level of establishing malpractice on the part of the Defendant.” … This section is clearly inapplicable because the children did not assert fraud or intentional misrepresentations in their original or amended complaints.

In re Admin. Order No. 15.1

2016 Ark. 131 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 17, 2016

An attorney ad litem, functioning as an arm of the court, is afforded immunity against ordinary negligence for actions taken in furtherance of his or her appointment. l. … An attorney ad litem, functioning as an arm of the court, is afforded immunity against ordinary negligence for actions taken in furtherance of his or her appointment. l.

Archer v. SISTERS OF MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM

294 S.W.3d 414 · 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.

Fields v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance

350 Ark. 75 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 19, 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. … Finally, the fact that criminal laws provide penalties for child abuse seems largely irrelevant as a justification for the doctrine, since Arkansas has already qualified the parental-immunity rule and excepted intentional

Dukes v. Norris

369 Ark. 511 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 3, 2007

Appellant contends that but for the lack of monitoring equipment, he has otherwise qualified for meritorious furlough, and although he does not request that the court provide a declaration to the effect that he is qualified … Here, appellant based his request for the writ upon the establishment of a right under the declaratory judgment he requested.

Bates v. City of Little Rock

229 Ark. 819 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 22, 1958

If NAACP wants tax immunity, it should comply with the ordinance. It cannot have immunity from taxation without complying with the ordinance. … The three-Judge Court, in an opinion by Circuit Judge Rives, held that the Alabama School Placement Law furnished legal machinery for an orderly administration of the public schools by admission of qualified pupils upon a

Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department v. Hope Brick Works, Inc.

294 Ark. 490 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 16, 1988

the release of the Highway Department’s appraisals to Hope Brick Works, Inc., will give a department’s competitor an unfair advantage; and (7) the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act is in violation of the privileges and immunities … Prior to the condemnation suit being filed, the appellee requested copies of all opinions of qualified real estate appraisers that formed the basis for the Highway Department’s offer to purchase the appellee’s land.

JOHN THURSTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS SHARON BROOKS, BILENDA HARRIS-RITTER, WILLIAM LUTHER, CHARLES ROBERTS, JAMES SHARP, AND J. HARMON SMITH, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS v. THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARKANSAS ARKANSAS UNITED DORTHA DUNLAP LEON KAPLAN NELL MATTHEWS MOCK JEFFERY RUST AND PATSY WATKINs

2024 Ark. 90 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 16, 2024

voters can vote in accordance with rules and processes established by the legislature. … Amendment 51’s stated purpose is to “establish a system of permanent personal registration as a means of determining that all who cast ballots in elections are legally qualified to vote in such elections.

Roberts v. State

488 S.W.3d 524 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 17, 2016

Roberts also argues that this court should establish a mandatory post-conviction proceeding and review for death-penalty defendants who waive their postconviction rights. … And whether one or the other amount to .what I guess a preponderance of evidence was a call that I just didn’t feel qualified or competent enough to make at that time. On cross-examination, Dr.

JOHN THURSTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS SHARON BROOKS, BILENDA HARRIS-RITTER, WILLIAM LUTHER, CHARLES ROBERTS, JAMES SHARP, AND J. HARMON SMITH, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS v. THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARKANSAS ARKANSAS UNITED DORTHA DUNLAP LEON KAPLAN NELL MATTHEWS MOCK JEFFERY RUST AND PATSY WATKINs

2024 Ark. 90 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 16, 2024

voters can vote in accordance with rules and processes established by the legislature. … Amendment 51’s stated purpose is to “establish a system of permanent personal registration as a means of determining that all who cast ballots in elections are legally qualified to vote in such elections.

City of Little Rock v. Infant-Toddler Montessori School, Inc.

270 Ark. 697 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 13, 1980

Pursuant to Rule 52 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, the findings of the trial court should not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. … Co., 246 Ark. 210 , 438 S.W. 2d 33 (1969), which holds that the state is immune from costs when it acts in a governmental capacity in an action not brought by it, and appellant urges that we extend that immunity to a municipality

Stapleton v. M.D. Limbaugh Construction Co.

333 Ark. 381 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 28, 1998

This interpretation, however, is contrary to our well-established rules of statutory construction. … For these reasons, we hold that by amending section 105 in 1993, the General Assembly clearly intended to extend tort immunity to a prime contractor regardless of whether a subcontractor has paid workers’ compensation benefits

Kimbrell v. McCleskey

424 S.W.3d 844 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 29, 2012

They aver that sovereign immunity has no bearing on the issue. … Clearly, the URT is not a county tax, but further absent is any suggestion whatsoever that it is a state tax.