Case law

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

Bolger v. United States

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 28, 2022

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damage actions if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Absent such a threat, it was clearly established in August 2017 that deadly force could not be used, and Ranger Sullivan is not entitled to qualified immunity for his actions. IV.

Jenkins v. Tobin

31 Ark. 306 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1876

the proofs in the case by the party seeking to establish the will unless it sufficiently appears from the evidence by the plaintiffs.” … This instruction was clearly erroneous; whatever may have been the decision of other courts, this court has so repeatedly held that a party who seeks to set aside a will which has once been established in the Probate Court

Griffin v. Hollis

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 4, 2019

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 11 In a non-emergency situation , requiring a written medical … Qualified Immunity The Defendants also contend they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Williams v. Pineda

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 14, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, a civil rights plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; [and] (2) demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established

Jacobs v. Yates

342 Ark. 243 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 5, 2000

She counterclaimed, challenging Jacobs’s qualifications as well, and the circuit court found that neither party was qualified to stand for the position. … The burden is clearly placed on the appealing party to provide both a record and abstract sufficient for appellate review. Oliver v. Washington County, 328 Ark. 61 , 940 SW. 2d 884 (1997).

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 19, 1993

and reasonable effort has been made to attract said qualified applicants. … The Arkansas Supreme Court has clearly stated that a prosecuting attorney is a constitutional state officer, who operates in a quasi-judicial capacity. Venhaus v. Brown, 286 Ark. 229 , 691 S.W.2d 141 (1985); Weems v.

Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc.

308 S.W.3d 135 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 30, 2009

(c)(1) Except as expressly stated in this section, nothing in this section shall eliminate or diminish any defenses or immunities which currently exist. (2) Assessments of percentages of fault of nonparties shall be used … Clearly the law modifying joint and several liability, Ark.Code Ann. § 16-55-201, defines the right of a party, a defendant, and is substantive.

Waters v. Olinkraft, Inc.

475 F. Supp. 743 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 25, 1979

Even this was forthcoming long after the date established by the Court. … Clearly, as he expressly recognized in his interview with the personnel director after his bid and before the award, he was not qualified for the millwright job.

Montgomery v. Lange

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 24, 2024

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976), established the absolute immunity of a prosecutor from a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.” … entitled to qualified immunity).

Scarlett Tapp and Timothy Perry v. Jamie Luper and Brian Luper

638 S.W.3d 18 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 17, 2021

Simply put, an unpardoned felon who is a relative of a child may serve as a guardian of the minor’s person (but not property) if the felon is otherwise qualified under Arkansas law. Ark. … This in turn means Jamie is not qualified to guard the children under the relative exception. We address this argument below.

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. State

86 Ark. 412 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 1908

Section 2 of article 4 of the Constitution of the United States provides that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” … laws and the policing of harbo'rs; the improvement and bridging of navigable streams (subject to an overseeing by Congressional legislation that the improvement does not interfere with interstate and foreign commerce); the establishment

Scott v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 19, 2022

Vineyard says he is entitled to qualified immunity. … If it were otherwise, qualified immunity would be a strong incentive for wrong-minded ingenuity.

DEFIR v. Reed

103 Ark. App. 319 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 29, 2008

Accordingly, Reed failed to meet her burden of establishing her ownership of the land in question. We agree that the trial court erred in finding that Reed was an heir. … We believe that the trial court clearly erred in finding that Reed was Langdon’s heir.

Emery v. Wilson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 13, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Based on the above accounts, Defendants state they are entitled to qualified immunity because Emery cannot establish an Eighth Amendment rights violation.

Bramlett v. Wellpath LLC

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 9, 2021

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person … A violation of a constitutional right has not been established and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hall v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2012 Ark. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 11, 2012

The appellate inquiry is whether the trial court’s finding that the disputed fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. J.T. v. Ark. … The ICWA establishes minimum federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of Indian children into foster or adoptive homes.