Case law

Arkansas United v. Thurston

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 19, 2022

Congress clearly contemplated that § 208’s protections would reach LEP voters. … Sovereign Immunity Does Not Bar Plaintiffs’ Suit The State Defendants renew their argument from the motion-to-dismiss phase that they are immune from suit based on sovereign immunity.

Arkansas United v. Thurston

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 7, 2022

Congress clearly contemplated that § 208’s protections would reach LEP voters. … Sovereign Immunity Does Not Bar Plaintiffs’ Suit The State Defendants renew their argument from the motion-to-dismiss phase that they are immune from suit based on sovereign immunity.

Human Rights Defense Center v. Baxter County, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 22, 2019

In ruling on the motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the Court undertook an extensive review of the decisions in this area, ultimately holding that the law was not clearly established that rejections pursuant … Sept. 29, 2014) (finding no clearly established law on the constitutionality of a postcard-only mail policy as it applies to non-pre-approved, non-privileged mail).

LeMaire v. Monster Energy Company

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 30, 2018

Merritt appears to be qualified as an expert on account of her knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. … Merritt’s diagnosis of Plaintiff’s seafood allergy more clearly demonstrated than when Dr.

Dinkelspiel v. Weaver

116 F. Supp. 455 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 23, 1953

The plaintiff, Leon Dinkelspiel, is the duly appointed and qualified trustee in bankruptcy for the said Harry Archer Davis, bankrupt, and brings this suit in his capacity as trustee. II. … At the outset it may be stated that requirements (1), (2), (5) and (6) are clearly established by the evidence and! no discussion is necessary concerning them.

Williams v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

96 F.R.D. 658 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 9, 1983

In fact, as noted, Rule 501 clearly negates the existence of any privilege not granted by the Arkansas Constitution or by statute or Supreme Court rule. … With these established rules of construction in mind, the language of the statute itself will be examined.

Robertson v. White

113 F.R.D. 20 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 5, 1986

Clearly, the rights sought to be enforced in this proceeding belong, if they exist, to the plaintiffs. … Furthermore, except for purposes of establishing or disestablishing diversity, there is no provision in the Rules for making a defendant a party plaintiff.

Baker v. Bentonville School District

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 8, 2022

Code Ann. § 21-9-301 states that the District is immune from suit, except for the amount of liability insurance maintained, and the insurer is directly liable. … Because the District is immune from suit,7 Plaintiffs’ negligence claim against the District is dismissed with prejudice. 7 Though Plaintiffs argue that Ark.

Kirkes v. United States

281 F. Supp. 831 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 20, 1968

“It is believed that the greater weight and preponderance of the medical and other evidence of record clearly and convincingly supports the conclusion that neither the claimant’s skin disorder nor his arm impairment, singly … There are many in the area but there is also no dearth of physically qualified applicants to fill the openings available.

Charles v. Union County, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 5, 2022

The Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case for discrimination, a plaintiff must establish he or she meets the following requirements: (1) is a member of a protected class … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (recognizing qualified immunity applies when “government officials” perform “discretionary functions” are generally shielded from liability for civil damages in 1983 actions)

Cook v. George's Inc.

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

The original Complaint clearly states that George’s offered him an interview for the job to which he was applying, and he failed to show up for the interview. … At most, the amendments merely add factual embellishment to Cook’s claim that he qualifies as disabled under the ADA.

Hayes v. Henderson

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

Judge Bryant explains that Plaintiff fails to “make out” a constitutional violation and that the TAPD Officers are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 104, at 7. … “When conducting de novo review, the district court makes its own determinations of disputed issues and does not decide whether the magistrate’s proposed findings are clearly erroneous.” Id. at 1046.

Williams v. Brown

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 4, 2021

The Court finds that the Younger abstention doctrine applies to this case because Plaintiff’s claim involves an ongoing state judicial criminal proceeding against himself, the state clearly has an important interest in … As established by the United States Supreme Court, a claim for damages for an “allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction

Porter v. Easley

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

Their actions were clearly unfair and unprofessional. (ECF No. 1, pp. 4-5) (cleaned up). … “[I]t is well established that a municipality [or county] cannot be held liable on a respondeat superior theory, that is, solely because it employs a tortfeasor.” Atkinson v.

Jackson v. Mitchell

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 19, 2023

, be denied as moot. 1 BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s Complaint does not clearly … Clarke, 961 F.2d 771, 774 (8th Cir. 1992) (“It is well- established that federal district courts can entertain pretrial habeas petitions in which the petition asserts an impending state trial violates the Double

Christie v. Layton Construction Co., LLC

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 30, 2025

Chavres’s role at Layton Construction is not clearly alleged, however the parties’ briefing clarifies that Mr. … In failure-to-accommodate cases under the ADA, a plaintiff must ultimately “establish both a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability and a failure to accommodate it.” Hopman v. Union Pac.

Purcell v. Pumphrey

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 10, 2021

Humphrey does not apply; and 4) qualified immunity does not bar Plaintiff’s claims. Id. at pp. 2-9. … Therefore, there is no need to address the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, whether the claims are Heck barred, or whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Dunkley v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co.

728 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 12, 1989

Defreece appears to have been well qualified for his position by education and experience. He had a Bachelor of Arts degree in business economics and approximately one and one-half years of law school. … Ruschke, the defendant clearly breached the duty which it accepted when it became trustee.

Friedman v. United States

186 F. Supp. 139 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 9, 1960

Since this program was only available to qualified veterans who would devote full time to it, he withdrew. *141 6. Louie Lelemsis experienced frequent high fever as a result of the malaria. … The Zimmerman case is clearly distinguishable on its facts from the instant case although the basic setting is much the same.

EAGLE STAR INSURANCE COMPANY v. Deal

337 F. Supp. 1264 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 8, 1972

An examination of defendants’ Exhibit 13, designated “Ledger,” establishes that Dr. … Deal is clearly entitled to an award of a reasonable attorney’s fee in the defense of the action. In Maryland Cas. Co. v.