Case law

Central Flying Service, Inc. v. Pulaski County Circuit Court

454 S.W.3d 716 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 19, 2015

But, in their motion to dismiss, CFS and Freeney asserted that the Estate failed to allege facts establishing that either of them had acted with the intent to injure Mauldin and, thus, failed to state facts upon which … In sum, as we explained in Entergy Ark., 2014 Ark. 506, ___ S.W.3d ___, where encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Commission is clear, a writ of prohibition is clearly warranted.

Mitchell v. State

298 Ark. 536 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 1, 1989

Finally, the Commission has provided that the completion of the established minimum standards for employment or appointment. must be achieved before employment eligibility is established. … The Commission clearly has established minimum standards that must be met before employment eligibility is established, and Arkansas law invalidates any action taken by an officer before he or she meets Commission standards

Ex parte Levy

43 Ark. 42 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1884

An immunity is much the same. … Constitutional Limitations, lays it down as a maxim of constitutional law, by which all enactments, and we may add, constructions of enactments, are to be tested; that those who make the laws “ are to govern by promulgated, established

Gill v. Saunders

182 Ark. 453 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 20, 1930

court finds to be particularly described and the boundaries thereof clearly designated. … The same findings were made by the circuit court which were made by the county court, and an order establishing the district was made.

Grayson v. Ross

369 Ark. 241 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 15, 2007

The federal district court further granted summary judgment for Sharum after finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … The federal district court also found that McAllister and Porter were entitled to qualified immunity for their intake of Grayson but not for their post-intake monitoring of him.

Bailey v. State

238 Ark. 210 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 1964

We are unable to understand the reason for the remaining point argued by appellant, since this question has been clearly answered contrary to the contention made. In Bailey v. … in the automobile after Bailey was placed under arrest, it is pointed out in Volume 1 of Searches, Seizures and Immunities, Section 5, Page 104, ‘ ‘ The general rule of law is that when a man is legally arrested for an offense

Hatley v. State

289 Ark. 130 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 27, 1986

The evidence clearly supports a finding that the waiver was voluntarily and intelligently given. … The arguments that death-qualified juries are unconstitutional were rejected.

Kelley v. Johnson

496 S.W.3d 346 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 2016

The Act establishes the current method by which executions are to be conducted in Arkansas. … of immunity.

Johnson v. State

307 Ark. 525 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 13, 1992

The fact that in a particular case it may take longer than 48 hours to consolidate pretrial proceedings does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Nor, for that matter, do intervening weekends. … Thus, the court’s regular practice exceeds the 48-hour period we deem constitutionally permissible, meaning that the County is not immune from systemic challenges, such as this class action.

Paulino v. QHG of Springdale, Inc.

386 S.W.3d 462 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 2012

hiring, the plaintiff must show (1) that an inadequate background check was done or there was the complete absence of a background check; (2) that a proper background check would have revealed that the employee was not qualified … Essex, 341 Ark. 558, 563 , 19 S.W.3d 585, 589 (2000) (finding that this court gives a narrow ]ir,view to the tort of outrage, and requires clear-cut proof to establish the elements in outrage cases).

Esterline Technologies Corporation; Armtec Countermeasures Co.; And Charles King v. Aaron Brownlee and Mary Brownlee

617 S.W.3d 256 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 18, 2021

Brownlee also argued that he needed additional discovery to establish Esterline’s legal relationship and potential liability. … Likewise, the Commission determines whether employer immunity under the Act extended to Charles King, Armtec’s supervisor of health and safety.

THOMAS BY CITY NAT. BANK v. Valmac Industries, Inc.

306 Ark. 228 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 1, 1991

The appellants look to the Arkansas Business Corporation Act to establish liability on the part of Tyson. Ark. … Thus, in this case, Guy Thomas clearly had a third-party claim against Valmac at the time he sustained his injury.

Kurrus Ex Rel. Arkansans to Protect Police, Libraries, Education, & Services (APPLES) v. Priest

342 Ark. 434 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 24, 2000

This is an impermissible impairment of contract clearly contrary to the Arkansas and United States Constitutions. … ALL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF TAX, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SUCH THAT THE TAXPAYERS IN FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OUGHT NOT TO ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR THE TAX; PROVIDING THAT SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

Dockery v. Morgan

380 S.W.3d 377 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 3, 2011

We held that appellants’ complaint clearly alleged the use of public funds; that appellants’ allegations survived a motion to dismiss; and that the circuit court erroneously dismissed the taxpayers’ illegal-exaction claim … Section 19-10-305 provides state employees with qualified immunity from civil liability for nonmalicious acts occurring within the course of their employment. See City of Fayetteville v.

Roeder v. United States

432 S.W.3d 627 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 10, 2014

The defendants argued that they were immune from liability pursuant to the ARUS because the evidence did not establish a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity … Bank of Am., 356 Ark. 576, 584, 157 S.W.3d 174, 179 (2004).7 Strict construction requires that nothing be taken as intended that is not clearly expressed. E.g., Estate of Hull v. Union Pac. R.R.

State v. Martin

134 Ark. 420 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 3, 1918

We think the language of the act necessarily includes the disease of smallpox and clearly confers the power upon the Board of Health to prevent its entry into and spread throughout the State by rule or order preventing unvaccinated … It is a well established rule of law that legislative bodies have no right to delegate the law making power to executive officers or administrative boards, but it is settled in this State .that the Legislature may delegate

Fitzgiven v. Dorey

429 S.W.3d 234 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 26, 2013

Relying on section 6-20-1908(f), ADE contends that it in no way acted outside of its authority, as the statute clearly requires the department to make recommendations regarding all aspects of staffing, as well as fiscal … The purpose of the AFAAP is to establish and implement a program by which ADE shall identify, assess, and address school districts in fiscal distress. See Ark. Code Ann. § 6-20- 1902 (Repl. 2007).

Butler v. Mills

61 Ark. 477 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 4, 1896

or change any county seat in the state without the consent of a majority of the qualified voters of the county to be affected by such change, nor until the place or places at which it is proposed to establish or change any … a complete and intelligible description of the proposed locations, together with an abstract of the title thereto and the terms and conditions - upon which the same can be purchased or donated by or to the county”; thus clearly

Robinson v. Holman

181 Ark. 428 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 24, 1930

Appellants brought this action to establish their right as negroes and Democrats to vote in Democratic primary elections in this State. … No State shall make or enforce any law 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

Johnson v. Butler

494 S.W.3d 412 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 9, 2016

Because Butler has failed to state a claim sufficient to establish an exception to sovereign immunity under the AWBA, we need not reach the issue of whether the General Assembly can waive the State’s sovereign immunity … Where the State brings a lawsuit, it is clearly not being made “a defendant in any of her courts.” Appellee Butler’s claims do not fit into this “exception” to sovereign immunity.