Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,912 results
2.58s
321 Ark. 391 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 17, 1995
On cross-appeal, Conway Corporation asserts that the trial court erroneously ruled that it is not immune from liability for tort as a qualified charitable organization. … Cross-appeal — charitable immunity On cross-appeal, Conway Corporation asserts that the trial court erroneously ruled that it is not immune from liability for tort as a qualified charitable organization.
Cited 28 timesPublishedSturdivant v. City of Farmington
255 Ark. 415 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 5, 1973
Pitts, 244 Ark. 1239 , 429 S.W.2d 45 (1968), we set aside the rule of law established by precedent which granted immunity to municipalities from tort liability. … The mere change from a permission to carry insurance to a direction to do so certainly should not be construed to create an exception from a clearly and positively declared immunity from suit.
Cited 17 timesPublished366 Ark. 371 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 18, 2006
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. … This court has announced the following principles regarding sovereign immunity: Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit.
Overruled on other grounds by Hardin v. Bishop, 2013 Ark. LEXIS 466 (2013)Cited 24 timesPublished473 S.W.3d 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 29, 2015
Therefore, this argument likewise cannot be considered as a basis for establishing an exception to sovereign immunity in this case. … This court held that the allegations did not establish a sovereign- immunity exception.
Cited 3 timesPublished301 Ark. 226 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 29, 1990
The city defended on the basis of its sovereign immunity. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint. … Although injury to property through negligence or trespass does not, without more, qualify as a taking, it has been held that a continuing trespass or nuisance can ripen into inverse condemnation.
Cited 36 timesPublishedArk. State Plant Bd. v. McCarty
576 S.W.3d 473 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 13, 2019
The circuit court also determined that the Farmers alleged no facts with respect to their administrative rulemaking appeal that would establish an exception to sovereign immunity. … Although the State raised sovereign immunity as a defense, we stated that [b]ecause appellee has asserted that Act 633 violates qualified voters' constitutional right to vote and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not
Cited 19 timesPublishedScamardo v. SPARKS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
375 Ark. 300 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 19, 2008
Sparks subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it qualified for charitable immunity under the eight factors listed in George, supra, and arguing that it was not a proper party defendant. … Turning to the question of Sparks’s entitlement to charitable immunity, Scamardo argues that “Sparks does not qualify for the charitable immunity defense because it was not created and maintained exclusively for charity.”
Cited 8 timesPublishedArk. State Highway Comm. v. Fowler
240 Ark. 595 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 4, 1966
A recent decision is clearly applicable: Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Russell, 240 Ark. 21 , 398 S. W. 2d 201 . … As the owner he is clearly competent to express his opinion of the before and after value of his property.
Cited 21 timesPublishedHelena-West Helena School District v. Monday
361 Ark. 82 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 3, 2005
The qualified immunity claim is a claim of right which is separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the complaint. . . .” Robinson, 291 Ark. at 482-83 . … The immunity for negligent torts afforded to school districts and to school employees, however, is qualified, and an employee or a district can be sued to the extent that applicable coverage exists under a policy of insurance
Cited 15 timesPublishedSeth v. St. Edward Mercy Medical Center
375 Ark. 413 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 22, 2009
This court has clearly stated that “charitable immunity is an affirmative defense that must be specifically pled.” Neal v. Sparks Reg’l Med. Ctr., 375 Ark. 46 , 289 S.W.3d 8 (2008) (citing Felton, supra). St. … In December 2005, this court handed down its decision in Low, supra, holding that a qualified charitable entity was immune from suit as well as liability, and that the Arkansas direct-action statute, Ark.Code Ann. § 23-79
Cited 19 timesPublishedAmerican Trucking Ass'n v. Gray
288 Ark. 488 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 14, 1986
The Highway Department established a mechanism where a carrier could either qualify and pay the HUE tax or formally declare a gross weight below 73,281 pounds and obtain a free specialty carrier decal. … We do not find the chancellor’s finding of fact that no common fund was established to be clearly erroneous. Ark. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Accordingly we affirm his judgment. Affirmed. Purtle, J., not participating.
Cited 12 timesPublished302 Ark. 558 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1990
By his testimony, he establishes that he engages in criminal practice. … But the alternative of qualifying a Prosecutor’s immunity would deserve the broader public interest.
Cited 25 timesPublishedGeorge v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n, Inc.
337 Ark. 206 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 8, 1999
Of the eight factors listed above, three are clearly established based upon evidence in the record. Those three are 1, 2, and 7. … JRMC’s size and complexity make knowledgeable, well-qualified personnel essential. Such persons do not readily volunteer their services or serve at rates of compensation markedly lower than market rates.
Cited 70 timesPublished2023 Ark. 153 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 26, 2023
. § 23-117-101 (Repl. 2015), and established an application period that ran from May 1 through May 30, 2019. … Gulfside submitted a letter notifying the ARC of its challenge to Legends’ status as a qualified applicant because it had “no gaming experience.”
Cited 1 timesPublished611 S.W.3d 482 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 3, 2020
The same statutory chapter provides that AACD shall annually develop and publish valuation tables and other data that shall be used by county assessors for assessing qualifying lands. Ark. Code Ann. § 26-26-407(f)(1). … But we do have jurisdiction to decide whether, assuming that all of the facts alleged by Kahle are true, Malone is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.”). 17 otherwise
Cited 7 timesPublished2023 Ark. 153 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 26, 2023
. § 23-117-101 (Repl. 2015), and established an application period that ran from May 1 through May 30, 2019. … Gulfside submitted a letter notifying the ARC of its challenge to Legends’ status as a qualified applicant because it had “no gaming experience.”
Cited 1 timesPublishedLake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee
359 Ark. 49 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 30, 2004
Clearly, our court endowed the masters with broad authority to order all parties and their counsel to file responses and to be present at oral arguments and hearings when testimony and other evidence would be heard. … refused to sign an agreed order; this court stated it was hard pressed to reconcile public notices to class members supporting fees. [2] Lake View had failed to prove the required class action or a common fund in order to qualify
Cited 1 timesPublishedDuPree v. Alma School District No. 30
279 Ark. 340 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 31, 1983
We will not overturn the decision below unless we find it clearly erroneous. (ARCP 52). … Privileges and immunities — Equality. — The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belpng to all citizens. § 1.
Cited 64 timesPublished296 Ark. 231 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 18, 1988
However, a clerk may have either absolute or qualified immunity for acts done in his or her official capacity. … only if he can show that his actions did not contravene clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in his position should have known.”
Cited 23 timesPublished363 Ark. 508 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 13, 2005
Land annexed to Fort Smith after July 1, 2001 does not qualify to receive the border city exemption. … The act here is clearly local and special legislation and in violation of Amendment No. 14 to the Arkansas Constitution.
Cited 8 timesPublished
Ask Donna