Case law

Brown v. Tucker

330 Ark. 435 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 1997

In his motion to dismiss filed below, Appellee raised the issues of sovereign immunity, individual immunity, and the complaint’s failure to state facts upon which relief could be granted as provided in ARCP Rule 12(b)(6). … The words allegedly used by Appellee clearly possess the general tenor of an opinion, as opposed to a verifiable statement of fact.

Boyles v. Clements

302 Ark. 575 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1990

(b) The tests shall be made by a duly qualified physician or physicians, or by another duly qualified person or persons, not to exceed three (3), to be appointed by the court. … Although we try chancery cases de novo on the record, we do not reverse a finding of fact by the chancellor unless it is clearly erroneous. McGuire v. Bell, supra (citing Milligan v.

Elam v. Hartford Fire Insurance

344 Ark. 555 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2001

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. … Hartford argues that it is immune from suit because a workers’ compensation claim is Elam’s exclusive remedy for this work-related injury.

Continental Casualty Company v. Davidson

250 Ark. 35 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 1, 1971

We clearly expressed a preference for an instruction using the word “any” in Avemco. … If the words “any of” had been substituted for “all” in the offered instructions, appellant would have clearly been entitled to have one of them given.

65th Center, Inc. v. Copeland

308 Ark. 456 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 2, 1992

A highway is laid out and established running along the edge of this existing quarry. … Garver & Garver clearly designed and observed the construction of the improvement, and Southeast just as clearly constructed it.

Duncan v. Duncan

383 S.W.3d 833 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 15, 2011

On August 23, 2007, the circuit court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which provided as follows: 6. … It is well established that when parties enter voluntarily into an independent property-settlement agreement that is incorporated into a decree of divorce, it cannot subsequently be modified by the court. Gentry v.

Roe v. State

304 Ark. 673 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 4, 1991

(b) The tests shall be made by a duly qualified physician or physicians, or by another duly qualified person or persons, not to exceed three (3), to be appointed by the court. … (c) (2) (A) A written report of the test results by the duly qualified expert performing the test, or by a fully qualified expert under whose supervision and direction the test and analysis have been performed, certified

Massongill v. County of Scott

337 Ark. 281 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 15, 1999

defenses were established. … The majority is clearly wrong. Second, this holding strains logic.

Hardy v. Bates

291 Ark. 606 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 13, 1987

The objection was presented at a point in the testimony when the permanent impairment of the third plaintiff was sought to be established. The following discourse occurred: COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Same objection. … He was asked a question which was clearly within the chiropractic field of expertise. Back injuries are the main area of concentration of the chiropractic profession.

Brown v. Arkansas State Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (HVACR) Licensing Board

336 Ark. 34 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 7, 1999

The Legislature preserved sovereign immunity within the Arkansas Civil Rights Act by stating: “Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to waive the sovereign immunity of the State of Arkansas.” Ark. … Finally, the appellant argues that the failure of the Chairman of the HVACR board to recuse from consideration of the case was so clearly a violation of the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act that even in the

Temco Construction, LLC v. Gann

427 S.W.3d 651 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 16, 2013

Third, the Ganns contended that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to sufficiently plead facts to establish a claim for fraud or misrepresentation. … immunity, we must have in place an order denying a motion to dismiss on that basis.

ARKANSAS WINS IN 2020, INC. v. JOHN THURSTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE

2020 Ark. 263 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 31, 2020

Petitioner challenges respondent’s decision declaring its initiative petition insufficient to qualify for the November 3, 2020 general election ballot. … Respondent is not subject to the payment of costs because of sovereign 2 immunity. See id.

Wallace v. Broyles

331 Ark. 58 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 5, 1998

Because he had no liability insurance coverage, Broyles asserted he was statutorily immune from suit and liability. … However, because Weber conceded having insurance coverage, he claimed immunity except to the extent of his coverage.

Weiss v. Chem-Fab Corp.

336 Ark. 21 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 7, 1999

The claimant has the burden of establishing the right to an exemption beyond a reasonable doubt and “to doubt is to deny [the exemption].” Aluminum Co. of America, supra; Pledgor v. … These chemicals clearly qualify as equipment according to DF&A’s own definition of that term.

Johnson v. State

5 Ark. App. 56 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 10, 1982

A trial court’s finding of fact will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous, clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Rule 52 (a), Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure; Winkle v. … The finding of the trial court that the term “book value” was not ambiguous is not clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

State v. Henry

304 Ark. 339 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 22, 1991

The record reflects that, at the time of respondent’s arrest, none of the five officers met the minimum employment standards established by the Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training. … Clearly, Game and Fish officers are empowered to make arrests for violation of the game and fish laws. Ark. Const, amend. 35, § 8.

Tom G. Clowers v. Marilyn Edwards, Former Washington County Judge; Joseph Wood, Current Washington County Judge; George Butler, Former Washington County Attorney; Brian Lester, Current Washington County Attorney; Garrett Harlan, Current Washington County Law Clerk; Tim Helder, Current Washington County Sheriff; Colin Jorgensen, Association of Arkansas Counties; Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney General; Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners; And Arkansas Secretary of State's Office

2020 Ark. 367 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 5, 2020

He brusquely dismisses the defendants’ immunity arguments in his reply brief but offers no argument for reversal of that ruling. … The position of constable is established in Article 7 of the Arkansas Constitution, which states that “qualified electors of each township shall elect the Constable for a term of two years.” Ark. Const. art. 7, § 47.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. T.B.

347 Ark. 593 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 14, 2002

Clearly, because a protective services case was open on T.B., DHS was obligated to provide the services ordered by the trial court. … Sovereign Immunity DHS contends that the trial court violated State sovereign immunity when it ordered DHS to pay the Brown Schools $48,000 or make the “responsible party” pay.

Devine v. Martens

371 Ark. 60 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 27, 2007

Devine also presented evidence of Syris’s immunization records and testified that he did not have any medical issues that she was aware of. … Additionally, her argument that Texas would have had jurisdiction, pursuant to section 9-19-201(a)(l), is without merit as that section deals with establishing jurisdiction in Arkansas, not Texas.

Smith v. American Trucking Ass'n, Inc.

300 Ark. 594 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 1989

It is also challenged on the basis of the Commerce Clause because truckers who have not qualified for the basic $.025 per mile rate are permitted to purchase an $.08 per mile trip ticket which, in practice, allegedly results … A suit against the state for damages could be the subject of a defense of sovereign immunity resulting in no recovery of the taxes collected in spite of the right to have the collection of them enjoined.