Case law

Braden v. Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 9, 2018

“Qualifying ACV Payment” means an actual cash value payment made by or on behalf of Foremost in connection with a Covered Loss where the estimated cost of labor necessary to repair or replace any physical loss or damage … The Final Approval Hearing and evidence before the Court clearly support a finding that the Stipulation was entered into in good faith after arm’s length negotiations between the Plaintiffs and Foremost, with no collusion

Shipp v. Hoffman

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 15, 2020

In that case, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of qualified immunity to a prison medical services administrator who, over the course of roughly eight months, received grievances and letters from a prisoner … Smith clearly believed that Dr.

Fayetteville Public Library v. Crawford County, Arkansas

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

Section 2 of Act 372 now eliminates that immunity (although that Section is not being challenged here). … Clearly, placing library materials in the public domain is not equivalent to censoring them. See Kreimer v.

Harris v. Ball

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 27, 2023

Plaintiff has responded arguing that he can show repeated lapses in medical care by Defendant Henry which is “Sufficient to Establish Cruel and Unusual Punishment.” ECF No. 33, at 1. … “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.

Richardson v. Tri-State Iron and Metal Co.

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 6, 2021

“Although employment discrimination cases are ‘often fact intensive and dependent on nuance in the workplace, they are not immune from summary judgment.’” Trierweiler v. … While these comments were clearly offensive, they were too infrequent to create a work environment that was either hostile or abusive. See Bainbridge v.

Scharnhorst v. Cantrell

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 26, 2023

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to establish liability against Cpl. … And although Plaintiff clearly suffered some discomfort while being held in the booking cell wearing shorts and a t-shirt when it was 21 degrees Fahrenheit, discomfort, by itself, does not violate the Constitution.

Guirlando v. Mitcham

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 24, 2021

They argue the motion should be granted because: 1) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; 2) Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs; 3) there is no evidence Plaintiff suffered … The policy clearly states UCDC employees will only use the type and degree of force which is reasonable and necessary based on the circumstances.

Sons of Southern Cross, Inc. v. Hurst

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 26, 2022

Although it is clearly established that the First Amendment protects Plaintiffs’ expressive conduct of flying the Confederate flag from regulation by the City, it is equally clearly established that the First Amendment … TOTMA established rules and reviewed applications for parade participation without input from the City.

Banks v. Ford

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 22, 2021

“To prove a violation of the right of meaningful access to the courts, a prisoner must establish the state has not provided an opportunity to litigate a claim challenging the prisoner’s sentence or conditions of confinement … Clearly, his ability to access the federal court system has in no way been impeded by any process or person at GCDC. C.

Virden v. Crawford County, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 16, 2024

sufficient facts to establish their standing to bring this lawsuit alleging First Amendment violations. … When an expert bases his opinion on assumed facts, then “[i]t is . . . up to the party who calls the expert to introduce other evidence establishing the facts assumed by the expert.”

Dansby v. Payne, Director, ADC

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 21, 2019

To find that a decision is contrary to clearly established federal law, a habeas court must find that the state court decision directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent or if, when faced with “materially indistinguishable … McDuffie that have not resulted in convictions” are “clearly inadmissible and should not be referred to.” (ECF No. 15-3 at 75).

Magness Oil Company v. SCF RC Funding IV LLC

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 19, 2021

Clearly, there is significant confusion regarding who owns each Disputed Store (and associated fuel systems) and how such ownership came to be. … On the other hand, Plaintiffs do allege a harm to their goodwill and reputation, and the Eighth Circuit has held that such injuries sometimes qualify as “irreparable.” United Healthcare Ins. Co. v.

Zetor North America, Inc. v. Rozeboom

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 14, 2018

According to Zetor NA, Ridgeway fails to clearly distinguish in its advertising which tractor parts it sells that are genuine Zetor parts , and which are manufactured by other entities. … Second , the proposed witness must be qualified to assist the finder of fact.

Wright v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 3, 2021

It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden of proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least one year and that prevents … Listing 1.04 To qualify for disability benefits at step three, a claimant must establish that his impairment meets or equals a listing. Johnson v.

Jones v. Baldwin

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

4 employees and only 1 This was because a box truck apparently only has room to seat up to three employees. 2 He also cites to another move sheet, see Doc. 40-1, p. 5, for the same proposition; however, that sheet clearly … The trucks he drove on an everyday basis weighed well in excess of the 10,001 pounds required to qualify for the motor-carrier exemption. Even though Mr.

Brock v. McGough

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 27, 2018

STANDARD The standard for summary judgment is well established. … Because Congress clearly intends the ADA’s comprehensive remedial scheme to be the exclusive remedial apparatus for vindicating ADA violations, “an ADA violation is not actionable under [section] 1983.”

De Rossitte v. Vowell.

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 20, 2019

In addition, Defendants asserted Plaintiff did not request “precise” injunctive relief from them in their official capacities; Defendant Griffin is entitled to qualified immunity as to the individual capacity claims against … The order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Cavner v. University of Arkansas Fort Smith

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 26, 2021

In December 2019, Plaintiff alleges she was denied an endowed professorship and was also passed over for a promotion that eventually was given to someone less qualified. … without compensation, no combination of other factors will suffice to establish the relationship.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)).

Manes' Pharmacy, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation

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

The movant, Manes, has the burden of establishing that injunctive relief is proper. Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003). … Ct. 1921, 1928 (2019) (listing “limited circumstances” in which a private entity can qualify as a state actor).

Farella v. District Judge A.J. Anglin

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

Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that numerosity exists; however, “no arbitrary rules regarding the necessary size of classes have been established.” Belles v. Schweiker, 720 F.2d 509, 515 (8th Cir. 1983). … the Court must determine whether “(1) the class representatives have common interests with the members of the class, and (2) whether the class representatives will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified