Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 23, 2004

to exist and hence qualify as one "that loses territory or students as a result of . . . consolidation." … This reading, which accords fully with common sense, clearly suggests that all of the districts participating in a consolidation will have a voice in shaping the interim board.

Jamie Gray, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Patricia Irene Bishop v. E.R.R.S., Inc., D/B/A Pink Bud Home for the Golden Years, Inc.

2025 Ark. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 21, 2025

Pink Bud asserted that Nurse Scott’s affidavit was insufficient to meet the burden because she is not qualified to opine as to causation. … The interplay between Bishop’s numerous medical conditions, including her longstanding cardiorespiratory issues, the effects it had on her immune system, and the contraction of pneumonia, is far too intricate to fall within

Crowder Land Company, LLC Estate of Kenneth E. Pace Grayson Land & Timber Company, Lp Atwl Resources, LLP Bavarian Timber 2015, LLC Twin Creeks Timber, LLC Roydell B. Osteen And Katherine Bruillette v. Charles Payne and Edna Payne

2022 Ark. App. 467 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 16, 2022

The circuit court found that appellants had established a prescriptive easement to use the North and South Roads over the Paynes’ property. … The right to hunt and fish, technically known as a profit à prendre, or a qualified ownership, in the land for limited purpose of hunting and fishing, is a valuable and well- recognized right and may be transferred between

James Bates v. Kristine Collins Homan, in Her Capacity as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Victor Collins

2021 Ark. App. 266 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 26, 2021

Social Host/Proximate Cause 9 Finally, Bates contends the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish that his furnishing alcohol to Collins was the proximate cause of his death. … Johnson, 2009 Ark. 92, at 11–13, 303 S.W.3d 46, 51–52 (holding that plaintiff was not required to plead the existence of liability insurance to defeat qualified immunity; the defendant, rather, was required to prove its

Basham v. Conkleton

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

In the instant motion, Defendant argues that he is entitled to summary judgment because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity requires a two-step inquiry. Jones v. McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2012).

Flemons v. Westbrook

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 16, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their positions … so, was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 18, 2003

The Veterans Preference Law requires that certain qualifying veterans be given "preference" in the hiring process. … (f) The names of candidates who have qualified in an examination, evaluation, or similar instrument given for the purpose of establishing an interview or employment list shall be entered on an appropriate register or list

Anderson v. State

200 Ark. 516 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 29, 1940

The rule is tlmt the corpus delicti or asportation is shown by the slightest removal; complete severance of the owner’s possession and actual possession by the wrongdoer establishes asportation. Reynolds v. … In other words, the facts in this case bring it clearly within the cases of Corley v. State, supra, and Meyer v.

Victor Bernard Williams, M.D. v. Baptist Health D/B/A Baptist Health Medical Center

598 S.W.3d 487 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 2020

The standard of review on appeal from a bench trial is whether the circuit court’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Hartness v. … Hearnsberger’s assertion of statutory immunity under Arkansas Code Annotated section 17-80-103 (Repl. 2010). Further, he alleges generally that Dr.

Sturdy v. Hall, Secretary of State

204 Ark. 785 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 12, 1942

The details of the act need not be recited as its general purpose is clearly stated. 2. We come now to a consideration of the sufficiency of the number of qualified signers on the petition. … Now it may be conceded that undisputed testimony establishes the fact that names appear on the petition not signed by the party whose name appears; but if this were not done with the wrongful intent and with conniyance between

Matter of Interest on Lawer's Trust

283 Ark. 252 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 17, 1984

At that time, we determined that the establishment of an IOLTA program, while a commendable and worthwhile objective, could not be approved, inasmuch as the element of client consent was not present. … The rules mandate that clients' funds held by an attorney must be segregated into a clearly labeled trust account unless they are fees and advances for costs and expenses.

Jackson v. Ivory

353 Ark. 847 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 26, 2003

Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Spears v. … In Swink, the court interpreted the accountant-immunity statute, which is analogous to the attorney-immunity statute.

Nash v. Hendricks

369 Ark. 60 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 22, 2007

The Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2671 , waived the traditional immunity from suit of the United States in its sovereign capacity. … In a series of decisions now known as the Feres doctrine, the United States Supreme Court established a judicially-created exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity in the FTCA, holding that the United States “is not

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission

2011 Ark. App. 453 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 22, 2011

They have settled and established meanings. These two provisions simply are irreconcilable.” He also ruled that the filed-rate doctrine must yield to the Arkansas Constitution. … Entergy involves the “public welfare and defense.” 4 We agree with the PSC that the term “educational purposes,” which is not expressly listed in the “public welfare and defense” exception to article 12, section 12, is clearly

Populist Party of Arkansas v. Chesterfield

359 Ark. 58 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 1, 2004

The trial court wrote: The General Assembly has established many requirements for “political parties” with respect to their participation in the election process. … The petition used here by the Populist Party, and its candidates, clearly met this requirement Further, there is no specific requirement that the petitioners declare their intention to actually vote for the candidate on the

Home Care Professionals of Arkansas, Inc. v. Williams

95 Ark. App. 194 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 10, 2006

Upon remand, the Board found that the remunerations qualified as wages. From that decision HCP now brings this appeal. … HCP specifically argues that the remuneration received by the caregivers does not constitute wages for the purpose of establishing unemployment insurance liability.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 20, 2005

I cannot say that the Board's interpretation of A.C.A. § 24-8-211 is clearly wrong in this instance. … The certification process therefore served the purpose of establishing a retiring judge's benefit entitlement, which was based upon service in the judicial retirement system.

Ellison v. Best Foods, A Division of C.P.C. International, Inc.

598 F. Supp. 159 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 14, 1984

The Bank hoped to change this situation by hiring a more qualified individual instead of merely promoting from among the Bank’s current employees someone less qualified. … Obviously, such a condition will not immunize the defendant from actions that stemmed from discriminatory conduct.

Harris v. Johnson

2011 Ark. App. 243 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 30, 2011

Noting that the General Assembly may limit tort liability only when there is an employment relationship between the parties, id. at 9, 350 S.W.3d at 806 , the court concluded as follows: In the instant case, as so clearly … A concurring opinion agreed but stated that the court of appeals’ opinion “[did] not clearly hold, in the last paragraph of its November 11, 2009 opinion, that [Johnson] may proceed with a tort claim against ...

Crowder Land Company, LLC Estate of Kenneth E. Pace Grayson Land & Timber Company, Lp Atwl Resources, LLP Bavarian Timber 2015, LLC Twin Creeks Timber, LLC Roydell B. Osteen And Katherine Bruillette v. Charles Payne and Edna Payne

2022 Ark. App. 467 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 16, 2022

The circuit court found that appellants had established a prescriptive easement to use the North and South Roads over the Paynes’ property. … The right to hunt and fish, technically known as a profit à prendre, or a qualified ownership, in the land for limited purpose of hunting and fishing, is a valuable and well- recognized right and may be transferred between