Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,912 results
0.61s
363 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 timesPublished298 Ark. 310 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 27, 1989
This appeal involves a tort case which requires this court’s interpretation of several statutes that bear on (1) whether the appellees are immune from liability under the concept of governmental immunity and (2) whether the … A tractor clearly falls within the definition of an implement of husbandry, and, as such, is not required to be registered under Arkansas law.
Cited 26 timesPublishedDavie v. Office of Child Support Enforcement
349 Ark. 187 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2002
No premiums, deposits, or other payment have been paid to qualify for them. … SSI recipients, however, either never paid this “premium” or never paid enough into the system to qualify for SSD.
Cited 7 timesPublishedRebsamen Motor Co. v. Phillips
226 Ark. 146 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 2, 1956
contract or franchise in effect with a manufacturer or distributor of the new or unused motor vehicle or vehicles proposed to be dealt in and who maintains adequate space in the building or structure wherein his, its or their established … fix his salary, etc.” ... is clearly an attempt by the Legislature to delegate this power to the commission.
Cited 12 timesPublished305 Ark. 90 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 25, 1991
That act provides that action taken by non-qualified officers “shall not be held invalid.” The act expressly applies to pending cases. … The Collins case is significant because it clearly limits the types of situations which will constitute violations of the Ex Post Facto Clause. In Collins, the defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse.
Cited 13 timesPublished2022 Ark. 206 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 1, 2022
This court clearly stated that, by authorizing attorneys’ fees, it was not “endorsing a new exception to the American Rule.” Lake View, 340 Ark. at 497, 10 S.W.3d at 902. … Thus, it qualifies who may file suit and does not limit which public entities can be sued. Ark. Const. art. 16, § 13. Thus, it qualifies who may file suit; it does not limit which public entities can be sued.
Cited 1 timesPublished329 Ark. 274 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 30, 1997
Failla and Stephens answered that any statements made by them were true and that they were protected by a qualified immunity due to their official capacities. … Rather, the thrust of his brief concerns the referral of the criminal matter to SherifFPhiUips and Minor’s contention that there was no qualified immunity.
Overruled on other grounds by United Insurance Co. of America v. Murphy, 331 Ark. 364 (1998)Cited 12 timesPublishedState v. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF CENT. ARK.
338 Ark. 322 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 1, 1999
Once federal immunity from taxation is established, Congress must express any waiver of that immunity as a “clear, express, affirmative desire.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, supra. … doctrine and that states cannot tax them in the absence of a statute which clearly and affirmatively waives this implied immunity.
Cited 10 timesPublishedSalley v. Central Arkansas Transit Authority
326 Ark. 804 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 9, 1996
Act 424 is the authority under which CAT was established. … See § 27-19-604 for other exceptions established under the Act.
Cited 6 timesPublished2022 Ark. 206 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 1, 2022
This court clearly stated that, by authorizing attorneys’ fees, it was not “endorsing a new exception to the American Rule.” Lake View, 340 Ark. at 497, 10 S.W.3d at 902. … Thus, it qualifies who may file suit and does not limit which public entities can be sued. Ark. Const. art. 16, § 13. Thus, it qualifies who may file suit; it does not limit which public entities can be sued.
Cited 1 timesPublished347 Ark. 395 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 17, 2002
This was clearly not the case. By its terms as entered in the progress notes, Hamilton formed a diagnostic impression following one forty-five minute session with Chambers. An impression is not a final diagnosis. … chancery court’s June 22, 1993, temporary relief order directing the following: That while the Court does not find a physical and mental evaluation of the parties or the children appropriate, the Court does find that a qualified
Cited 31 timesPublished229 Ark. 416 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 29, 1958
Those duties, however, are not clearly defined. … Tested by this standard, the ballot title now before us is clearly insufficient. The petition for an injunction is accordingly granted.
Cited 437 timesPublished444 S.W.3d 844 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 15, 2014
Thus, we hold that, because of their status as registered voters in Arkansas, Appellees have established standing in the instant case. B. … Applying our well-established precedent to the present case, Act 595 cannot survive a constitutional facial challenge.
Cited 16 timesPublishedArkansas Lottery Commission v. Alpha Marketing
428 S.W.3d 415 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 30, 2013
This | 19court noted that the ADC had clearly asserted the defense of sovereign immunity in its answer and disagreed that “all other appropriate relief’ was specific: LandsnPulaski argues that the phrase “all other appropriate … The court qualified this holding by stating that it could be raised in an amended answer, "unless there is a motion to strike the pleading, and the court finds that prejudice results.”
Cited 12 timesPublishedArkansas Game & Fish Commission v. Eddings
378 S.W.3d 694 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 2011
The first issue in this case is whether AGFC is entitled to sovereign immunity from a suit to establish a county road across its land. … This constitutional provision by itself, however, does not grant the power of eminent domain to the county court to establish roads. The power of eminent domain must be clearly expressed. See City of Little Rock v.
Cited 6 timesPublished363 Ark. 241 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 15, 2005
Moreover, a mandamus action enforces the performance of a legal right after it has been established; its purpose is not to establish a right. Id. … In other words, Clowers asserts, [S]ince only the relief requested by [Clowers] was that the [ACIC and the sheriff] perform its clearly required statutory duty ... the Trial Court clearly erred in ruling — as a matter of
Cited 26 timesPublished3 Rivers Logistics, Inc. v. Brown-Wright Post No. 158 of the Am. Legion
548 S.W.3d 137 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 15, 2018
Applying the principles set forth above, we conclude that the language of the statute clearly expresses the General Assembly's intent to give a shooting range immunity from noise-based lawsuits if it is not in violation of … Clearly, the Indiana statute differed significantly from ours in that it provided immunity only "if such a law or ordinance was in existence at the time of the construction or initial operation of the shooting range."
Cited 17 timesPublished67 L.R.A. 773 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 3, 1904
Justice Watson, who delivered the opinion of the court, clearly distinguished, with express approval, the former decision of that court in the case of State v. … It is, in fact, a property right, and not a mere privilege or immunity of citizenship. See also Sterling v. Jackson, 69 Mich. 488 ; Hall v. Alford, 38 L. R. A. 205; Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369; Hickman v.
Cited 25 timesPublishedSexton v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
275 Ark. 361 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 29, 1982
We routinely hold that one claiming an exception from taxation because of a statutory grant has the burden of clearly establishing the exception beyond a reasonable doubt, and the statute will be strictly construed against … Such testimony would necessarily have to come from one qualified as an expert.
Cited 14 timesPublishedWilliams v. Arkansas Department of Correction
362 Ark. 134 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 28, 2005
defendants did not violate Williams’s constitutional rights; and, (7) the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities. … Before addressing whether the defendants were entitled to statutory immunity in their official capacities, or, qualified immunity in their individual capacities, this court must find that Williams pled facts sufficient to
Cited 10 timesPublished
Ask Donna