Case law

Insurance Co. of North America v. Saltzman

111 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 17, 1953

Company, is a Pennsylvania , corporation qualified to do business in the State, of Arkansas, " . , . The defendant, B. N. … The rule is firmly established in Arkansas that the measure of property damages arising out of. an'.automobile collision is the difference .between the market value of the property immediately before the injury and its market

Ames v. Ennis

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 20, 2024

immunity on the individual capacity claims. … “Congress did not establish a statute of limitations or a body of tolling rules applicable to actions brought in federal court under § 1983 – a void which is commonplace in federal statutory law.”

Hamer v. Brown

641 F. Supp. 662 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 15, 1986

Furthermore, the evidence clearly shows that there were no jobs available at the time of Dr. Hamer’s termination for which he was properly qualified. A separate judgment shall be entered contemporaneously herewith. … JUDGMENT In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion entered this date in the above-styled cause, the Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof in establishing that his termination by defendants

Toney v. Cash

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 30, 2019

immunity as there was no constitutional violation. … immunity may 1 Plaintiff also alleges they were told they could not exercise inside either.

McCotry v. Holloway

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 22, 2022

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Benton County Sheriff Shawn Holloway assigns someone who is not a licensed medical professional—and therefore not qualified—to question inmates about their medical history in violation of … To state a claim, moreover, the plaintiff must establish that each defendant “personally violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” Jackson, 747 F.3d at 543 (citation omitted). III.

United States v. Ahrens

394 F. Supp. 531 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 28, 1975

The fact that assessments were made establishes a prima facie case of liability which if not impeached has been clearly held sufficient to justify a recovery. United States v. … Maryland Casualty Co., (8 Cir. 1964) 336 F.2d 72 , the court at page 74 held: “Maryland had the burden of clearly establishing the lack of genuine issue of material fact. See Walling v.

Meraz v. Mulvaney

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 9, 2025

Finally, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … As no constitutional violation occurred, the Court need not address qualified immunity or official capacity liability.

Cernosek v. Walker

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

immunity. … immunity.

Sasser v. Kelley

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 2, 2018

Where state court remedies have been exhausted, a federal court cannot grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless the state’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … Finally, Sasser argues that expert testimony from a psychologist would have established that Sasser’s brain impairments had “broad-reaching detrimental effects on his ability to function in the world” and would have established

Jones v. Gentle

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 28, 2019

Plaintiff contends that he only sues Defendants in their individual capacities; however, Plaintiff’s Complaint clearly indicates that he is asserting both individual and official capacity claims. … immunity.

Elmore v. Mohr

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 21, 2020

Personal capacity claims, on the other hand, 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 as a defense.

Phillips v. Singleton

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 30, 2019

immunity; and (3) there is no basis for official capacity liability. … (ECF No. 42-1, p. 11). 10 Because there was no violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, it is unnecessary for the Court to address the issue of qualified immunity.

In re Wolf

27 F. 606 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 15, 1886

It is a prohibition which is clearly local. … This provision of the treaty is clearly an agreement to sell to friendly Indians, who the Cherokees agree with the United States may be settled on the land.

United States v. 209.25 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.

108 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 13, 1952

Of course, the legislative or administrative determination has great weight, but an administrative agency cannot invoke the political power of the Congress so as to *460 immunize its action against judicial examination in … The burden is upon the landowner, the defendant herein, to clearly prove that the action of the officials of the government in selecting and in taking his land was arbitrary and capricious.

Tate v. Jackson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 5, 2025

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.” … Plaintiff clearly challenges his search and seizure as illegal for lack of evidential support or an arrest warrant. (ECF No. 19, pp. 3-4).

Richardson v. Omaha School District

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 22, 2018

In addition, or perhaps in the alternative, Defendants argue that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Further, they contend that this tort claim would be barred by sovereign immunity.

Murguia v. Childers

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 23, 2021

Murguía’s claim under the Fourteenth Amendment falls within the Ex parte Young exception to state sovereign immunity. … Murguía never requested translation services, DOL guidance clearly puts the responsibility on the agency, not the claimant, to identify language barriers and provide access options.

Crawford v. General Contract Corporation

174 F. Supp. 283 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 2, 1959

Finally, it may be noted that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that their damages were a result of the defendants’ action. … It is, however, well recognized that a qualified privilege exists in these circumstances. In Braman and the Gus Blass Co. v.

Arkansas United v. Thurston

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 5, 2021

State Defendants Are Not Immune From Suit The Court first turns to State Defendants’ assertion that state sovereign immunity bars Plaintiffs’ claims. … Here, in contrast, the VRA clearly permits both the Attorney General or “an aggrieved person” to initiate judicial proceedings to enforce the statute’s requirements.

Allen v. Oliver

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 2, 2021

immunity; and 7) there is no basis for official capacity liability. … immunity.