Case law

Rose's Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Rex Financial Corp.

383 F. Supp. 937 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 6, 1974

Clearly, the contract insofar as Rex is concerned has been executed. In Republic Power & Service Co. v. … No evidence even tends to establish such contention and, as above stated, it appears to the court that Rex is in nowise responsible for the default of said parties.

Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. Arkansas Communities, Inc. (In re Arkansas Communities, Inc.)

33 B.R. 800 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 31, 1983

The decision in this case is based primarily on the testimony of two highly capable, qualified and outstanding surveyors in their field, Mr. William F. … The “clearly erroneous” rule is applicable to this case. Rule 53(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., provides that the court shall accept the Master’s findings of fact “unless clearly erroneous.”

Morris v. Ribicoff

194 F. Supp. 841 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 12, 1961

‘Any substantial gainful activity’ is such activity for which the particular claimant is reasonably qualified by education, training, or skill. … In the instant case the plaintiff has clearly shown the type of work he has performed in the past. This is the work of a carpenter which, of course, requires strenuous labor.

Pratt v. Cearly

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 14, 2023

Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on July 22, 2022 in 1 Defendant Kyle Clearly is incorrectly identified in the Complaint as Deputy Cearly. … Personal capacity claims “are those which allege personal liability for individual actions by officials in the course of their duties; these claims do not require proof of any policy and qualified immunity may be raised

Turner v. Martin

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 8, 2024

Personal capacity claims “are those which allege personal liability for individual actions by officials in the course of their duties; these claims do not require proof of any policy and qualified immunity may be raised … The record clearly indicates Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies here. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to the PLRA. IV.

Jackson v. RockTenn CP, LLC

157 F. Supp. 3d 828 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 8, 2016

Jackson’s Showing of Pretext Even if the Court were to assume that the age difference between Jackson and her replacement was substantial,,and that Jackson set forth a prima facie case of age discrimination, RockTenn has clearly … met its burden of establishing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her firing: poor job performance.

McBee

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 8, 2026

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Chessir and Brasel were not acting in good faith by continuing to prosecute her because “the unlawfulness [of her arrest and search and seizure] was clearly established with the court.” … Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1971) established the absolute immunity of a prosecutor from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” Id. at 427.

Goodman v. Harness

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 16, 2022

First Amendment rights and that those rights were clearly established at the time, per the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Reisch. … Qualified immunity is therefore denied as to the allegations concerning the “Searcy County OEM” Facebook page. 2.

Anateus Lineal 1948, Inc. v. United States

366 F. Supp. 118 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 9, 1973

This argument ignores all the other operations of the plaintiff as established by the evidence. … It was necessary that the ■ plaintiff hire better qualified and more employees to carry out the exempt functions of the plaintiff.

Krecker v. Prosecuting Attorney

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 14, 2020

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976), established the absolute immunity of a prosecutor from a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” … entitled to qualified immunity).

Marvel v. Doe

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 26, 2018

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976), established the absolute immunity of a prosecutor from a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” … entitled to qualified immunity).

Mendez v. Thomas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 13, 2019

Mendez offered in evidence a competing translation of the interrogation by a certified interpreter/qualified translator named Nicholas Durand. … Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, (1976), established the absolute immunity of a prosecutor from a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ‘in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case

Smith v. Tallant

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 7, 2024

Personal capacity claims “are those which allege personal liability for individual actions by officials in the course of their duties; these claims do not require proof of any policy and qualified immunity may be raised … Here, however, Plaintiff clearly complains only of an access to the court claim. 6 Plaintiff did not allege any policy, procedure, or custom caused the

King

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 21, 2026

King argues that immunity “does not apply to judges or prosecutors who are breaking well established laws.” Id. … Judge Ford reviewed the facts alleged by King and found that King’s claims are barred by Heck, judicial immunity, and prosecutorial immunity.

Pratt v. Mitcham

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 18, 2024

To establish personal liability of the supervisory defendants, [Plaintiff] must allege specific facts of personal involvement in, or direct responsibility for, a deprivation of his constitutional rights.” … Personal capacity claims “are those which allege personal liability for individual actions by officials in the course of their duties; these claims do not require proof of any policy and qualified immunity may be raised

Conway v. Oliver

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 7, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims. … Plaintiff maintains that qualified immunity is inapplicable to Defendants. Analyzing a claim of qualified immunity requires a two-step inquiry. Jones v. McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2012).

Leach v. Standard Register Co.

94 F.R.D. 621 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1982

Consequently, plaintiff is not qualified to represent such a class. … Although plaintiff is clearly a member of this class, similarly situated to the other members, the press test was given to only 13 females during the applicable period. Only six failed it.

Hansler v. Kelley

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 13, 2018

any violation of his constitutional rights, or rights under RLUIPA; and 3) Defendant are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to establish any violations of his constitutional rights or rights under … Qualified Immunity As there were no violations of Plaintiff’s rights under either the constitution or RLUIPA, it is not necessary to address the issue of qualified immunity

Jones v. Freeman

270 F. Supp. 989 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 24, 1967

The defendants’ primary contention is that the instant suit, to enjoin them as officers of the United States, is actually against the United States itself, and as such is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … However, the only acts alleged were clearly within the conduct prescribed by the statutes and regulations. There is no allegation of any specific acts of harassment or intimidation.

Walton v. Voss

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 11, 2022

reasons, Defendants alternatively argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Court, having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation, finds that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Krout v.