Case law

Madden v. Aldrich

346 Ark. 405 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 1, 2001

Clearly, the trial court below and the majority in affirming have failed to extend immunity to Ms. Madden as required by Arkansas's lawyer-immunity statute. … The majority's attempt to narrow the impact of Arkansas's lawyer-immunity statute to only professional services is clearly at odds with the immunity contemplated by the General Assembly's use of such a broad phrase.

Thomas v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

319 Ark. 782 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 13, 1995

The construction of a state statute by an administrative agency is not overturned unless it is clearly wrong. Id. … Medical Services Policy 3332.2 #13a states a Medicaid Qualifying Trust is a trust or “similar legal device” established by an individual (or his spouse) who is the beneficiary of the trust and who gives a trustee any discretion

State of Arkansas v. Luis Ramirez

2026 Ark. 92 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 30, 2026

Because this record does not support a finding of detrimental reliance, the circuit court clearly erred by estopping the State from exercising its statutory right to refile. KAREN R. … Stated another way, this court will accept appeals by the State only when its holding will establish an important precedent for the correct and uniform administration of justice. State v.

Thomas v. State

315 Ark. 504 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 18, 1994

Sufficiency of the evidence In his first argument, Thomas contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he had committed the crimes with which he was charged. … He stated that he had been given immunity for his testimony in a 1977 capital murder trial.

Cude v. State

237 Ark. 927 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 6, 1964

against the disease of smallpox, and thereafter enrolled in the public schools of this State, all in accordance with the laws of this State, and all to be done by qualified and licensed and practicing physicians of this … No human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment, . denomination or mode of worship

Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Committee

307 S.W.3d 6 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 16, 2009

Supp. 2006), provides: (3)(A) The basis of the request for administrative review shall be clearly stated and any documentary evidence attached. … The Committee responds that the record clearly reflects that the statutory requirements for assessing a sexually violent predator were satisfied.

Trimble v. State

316 Ark. 161 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 28, 1994

The jury clearly was not bound by Trimble’s version of the murder itself and based on the evidence presented could have concluded that Trimble was lying when he said he was not involved in the murder. See Heard v. … The burden of proof in establishing jury misconduct is on the moving party. Id.

Hale v. State

343 Ark. 62 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 7, 2000

However, neither case establishes an exception to our contemporaneous-objection rule. … Finally, he contends that the State failed to follow the procedure established by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-44-201 .

Smith v. Rogers Group, Inc.

348 Ark. 241 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 18, 2002

Acquired immunity is not immunity from suit; rather, it is immunity from liability. … Unlike AHTD, Rogers is not an entity that enjoys immunity from suit in tort. This conclusion is clearly illustrated by the fact that Appellants were able to sue the contractor directly in the circuit court.

Hanley v. Arkansas State Claims Commission

333 Ark. 159 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 7, 1998

Code Ann. § 16-115-101 (1987), is appropriate if the following two factors are established. … We agree with the trial court that DHS has failed to establish both of these factors. In Fireman’s Insurance Co. v.

Burkett v. PPG Industries, Inc.

294 Ark. 50 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 7, 1987

However, we affirm the trial court’s holding that the insurance companies are immune from suit, due to our workers’ compensation laws which identify the insurers with the employer who clearly is immune. 1. … That subsection establishes a formula by which the proceeds of any recovery from the “third party” are distributed.

Cook, Commissioner of Revenues v. Wilson

208 Ark. 459 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 2, 1945

The federal statutes show that national forests are established in two ways: (a) by presidential proclamation declaring certain lands of the public domain to be a national forest. … Executive construction of a statute is entitled to consideration by the courts, and should not be disregarded except for cogent reasons, or unless clearly erroneous. 59 C. J. 1027; 25 R. C. L. 1045; 42 Am.

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS v. MATTHEW ANDREWS

535 S.W.3d 616 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 18, 2018

However, because of the manner in which the majority has interpreted article 5, the holding clearly violates the above-cited article 2 provisions. … Instead, the majority’s decision, in a perfunctory fashion, overhauls over twenty years of our well-established law on sovereign immunity and has effectively revived the antiquated doctrine that “the king can do no wrong.

Coonrod v. Seay

367 Ark. 437 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 12, 2006

representative on account of injury or death arising out of and in the course of her employment is a claim for compensation under § 11-9-105, and that the commission has exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine the facts that establish … Finally, the circuit court clearly encroached on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Commission when it made the preliminary determination that Coonrod was not Seay’s employer and thus not immune under

Curtis v. Lemna

2014 Ark. 377 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 18, 2014

death arising out of and in the course of her employment is a claim for compensation under § 11-9-105, and that the commission has exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine the facts that establish … Thus, clearly the ALJ and the Commission realized there was no authority for the Commission to apply Arizona law to the facts of this case.

Arkansas Department of Education Jacob Oliva, in His Official Capacity as Arkansas Secretary of Education Randy Henderson, Jeff Wood, Adrienne Woods, Steve Sutton, O. Fitzgerald Hill, Ouida Newton, Sarah Moore, Kathy McFetridge, and Lisa Hunter, in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Arkansas State Board of Education Friendship Education Foundation And the Marvell-Elaine School District v. Doris Ivy Jackson Laverne Sims Jesselia Maples Diamacious Sims Darryl Harris Sylvia Moore Danielle Wright Derashaun McGhee Vivian Davis James Carruth Iola Hoskins Steven Grappe Veronica McClane And Citizens for Arkansas Public Education and Students (Capes), a Ballot Question Committee

2023 Ark. 105 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 15, 2023

Appellees’ claims regarding the expenditure of funds under the transformation contract are clearly monetary in nature and are therefore not considered irreparable. … Sovereign Immunity First and foremost, sovereign immunity bars nearly the entirety of the appellees’ lawsuit.

Landers v. Energy Systems Management Co.

305 Ark. 267 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 22, 1991

theory, an employer may become a third person, vulnerable to tort suit by an employee, if and only if, he or she possesses a second persona so completely independent from and unrelated to the status as employer that by established … These will ordinarily be situations in which the law has already clearly recognized duality of legal persons, so that it may be realistically assumed that a legislature would have intended that duality to be respected.

In Re Creation of the Office of Ethics Counsel and Amendments to Rules 1.6 and 8.3 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct

2021 Ark. 169 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 30, 2021

Establishment. … Immunity.

Erika Lara, Katie Parrish, and Nikita Glendenning v. Gwen Faulkenberry, Special Renee Sanders, Anika Whitfield, and Kimberly Crutchfield

2025 Ark. 205 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2025

We hold that the Appellants have established a recognized interest in the lawsuit. C. … Faulkenberry, 2025 Ark. ___, implicates sovereign immunity, I must dissent from the result reached by the majority.

Allred v. McLoud

343 Ark. 35 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 30, 2000

Those provisions establishing eligibility are: • Arkansas Constitution, art. 7, § 29 — the county judge is elected by the qualified electors of the county for a two-year term and shall be at least 25 years of age, a United … This is clearly the case with respect to the county judge and justice of the peace where specific qualifications for those offices are listed in both the Arkansas Constitution and § 14-14-1301.