Case law

Arkla Exploration Co. v. Watt

548 F. Supp. 466 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 20, 1982

Arkla, beyond doubt, qualifies as an aggrieved party adversely affected by the agency action challenged herein. … Clearly, they have properly met the requirements of Rule 24(a) governing intervention of right.

Larsen v. Maynard, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 2, 2019

qualifies as sufficient direct evidence of retaliatory intent. … As a woman who worked in the welding department at Maynard for years before she was terminated, Larsen clearly demonstrates her membership in a protected class, that she was qualified for the job, and that she suffered

Kizer v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

18 F. Supp. 2d 979 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 14, 1998

As stated above, applicable earnings are established by the employer and this is determined to be $14,650. A review of Mr. … (Amended Complaint, ¶ 5) It is important for a plaintiff who files suit under ERISA to clearly identify the remedial code section under which relief is being sought.

Dodd v. Fort Smith Special School District No. 100

666 F. Supp. 1278 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 27, 1987

However, the testimony at the hearing established that at some point in the summer, Ms. … The right to access has been premised on various sources under the constitution including the first amendment, the due process clause, and the privileges and immunities clause of Article 4.

Russellville Canning Co. v. American Can Co.

87 F. Supp. 484 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 19, 1949

It may be that this is a reasonable approach to the problem in view of the heavy burden on sellers, but defendant’s system cannot qualify thereunder. … The parties to this suit draw different conclusions from the legislative history, but, in the opinion of the court, nothing appears from that history which clearly indicates an intention to limit the application of the Act

Kaiser v. Doe Officers 1-3

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 7, 2023

must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Second, it is clearly established that ongoing state criminal proceedings implicate the important interest of the state in enforcing its criminal laws. See, e.g., Meador v. Paulson, 385 F.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Texar Line Clearance, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 29, 2023

If the EEOC “lacks evidence that clearly points to the presence of an illegal motive, [it] must avoid summary judgment by creating the requisite inference of unlawful discrimination through the McDonnell Douglas analysis … It claims that Texar steered less qualified Hispanic applicants into higher paying skilled positions and steered equally qualified African American applicants into lessor paying positions.

Garay v. Adams

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 12, 2020

Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s claims because: (1) there is no evidence establishing deliberate indifference; (2) they are entitled to qualified immunity … Even when liberally construed, Plaintiff’s objections do not object to Judge Bryant’s findings that Plaintiff failed to establish deliberate indifference, failed to establish an unconstitutional policy or custom

NetChoice

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 15, 2025

States generally enjoy sovereign immunity in federal courts from suits brought by citizens of other states and their own citizens. . . . … Section 1502’s first three prohibited results, and § 1503 as a whole, clearly impose content-based restrictions on speech.

Yates v. Holloway

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 31, 2019

As relief, Plaintiff seeks “[e]nough funding to start a business” ($300,000 to $400,000) and “immunity for the amount of time evidence is to be held for violent crimes.” … Defendants clearly were acting under color of law. The focus in this case is on the second element. A.

Montgomery v. Miller

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 26, 2024

Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989) (First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances includes redress under established prison grievance procedures). … In Spann, the Eighth Circuit declined to address the issue of whether Spann “enjoyed a clearly established liberty interest in avoiding assignment to administrative segregation.” Spann, 65 F4th at 992.

Neal v. Walker

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 1, 2023

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 … To prove a cognizable claim against the Defendant King, Plaintiff must establish that he “personally violated [his] constitutional rights.” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 543 (8th Cir. 2014).

Williams v. Runion

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 11, 2019

immunity. … The failure to file timely 5 Because the Court has found Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights it is not necessary to address the issue of qualified immunity.

Klingensmith v. Deboer

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 22, 2020

Seller contacted “SOCNA”2 and was told that Plaintiff did not qualify for RSVP. (Id.). Dr. … Mull, 784 F.3d 485 (8th Cir. 2015) (mere timing of events alone does not establish the requisite causal link); Atkinson v.

Villarreal v. Watson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 5, 2023

must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Claim Two for harassment against Defendant Watson clearly fails to state a cognizable constitutional violation claim.

Heekin Can Co. v. Kimbrough

196 F. Supp. 912 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 17, 1961

The plaintiff, The Heekin Can Company, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio and qualified to do business in the State of Arkansas. … The defendant, The Lawrence Warehouse Company, is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and qualified to do business in the State of Arkansas.

Nowlin v. Sylvester

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 3, 2024

and Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Nowlin’s claim for monetary damages was also dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. (ECF No. 17).

United States v. 561.14 Acres of Land

203 F. Supp. 673 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 5, 1962

They are conscientious and well qualified. … Suffice it to say that the court does not believe that the findings of fact and the amount fixed as just compensation are clearly erroneous.

King v. Ahrens

798 F. Supp. 1371 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 7, 1992

That statute established a limited or conditional privilege. … Clearly, the emphasis is on physician choice. The physician is free, in the exercise of his discretion, to determine whether he will participate in such informal discovery.

Hopper v. Addams

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 21, 2024

It is well-established in the Eighth Circuit that claims based on sovereign citizen ideology are inherently frivolous and should be summarily dismissed as a waste of judicial resources. United States v. … Plaintiff’s Complaint is clearly based on sovereign citizen ideology and principles.