Case law

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.

Durden v. Sebastian County

73 Ark. 305 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 10, 1904

There shall be established in each county in this State an office to be styled the recorder’s office, which shall be kept at the seat of justice.” … This qualifying clause is not to be found in the provision with reference to the clerk being ex officio recorder.

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

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 20, 2001

Given that you were a police officer, and as such a public employee, I believe the information at issue clearly qualifies as a "public record" under this definition. … Common sense would suggest that a record reflecting disciplinary charges against a public employee would clearly qualify as a "job performance record." Professor John J.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 8, 2004

Citizens to Establish a Reform Party in Arkansas v. Priest, 235 Ark. 257 , 926 S.W.2d 432 (1996). … Act, it clearly does qualify under the more specific terms of A.C.A. § 25-20-403 (a)(2), which declares point-blank that such a cooperative "may join in the formation" of an AMECA.

Terrell v. State

35 Ark. App. 185 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 2, 1991

The Harbison court was not required to decide whether, and under what circumstances, expert testimony might be necessary to establish that a given amount of a drug is a “usable” quantity. … Generally, the tendency is to permit the jury to hear the testimony of the person with superior knowledge in a given field unless clearly lacking in either training or experience, and too rigid a standard should be avoided

Bedell v. Williams

386 S.W.3d 493 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 23, 2012

Williams also relied on a LRHC internal policy to establish a duty as to Bedell. … Clearly, a legal entity such as a hospital or nursing home cannot literally give testimony against itself.

Fletcher v. Farm Bureau Insurance Co.

10 Ark. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 30, 1983

Other doctors testified concerning their treatment or evaluation of appellant, and none of their testimonies established that appellant’s symptomology or condition was caused by formaldehyde exposure. … Clearly, the study was neither newly discovered evidence nor admissible as such.

Watkins v. Smith (125)

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 9, 2023

The Court now turns to the clearly-established prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry. Were a finder of fact to resolve the factual disputes in favor of Mr. Watkins, at the moment Corporal Smith tasered Mr. … Watkins, it is not clearly established that a seizure under such circumstances is unconstitutional, and Corporal Smith is entitled to qualified immunity. 12

Smith-Dandridge v. Geanolous

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

Qualified Immunity “At summary judgment, qualified immunity shields a law enforcement officer from liability in a § 1983 action unless: ‘(1) the facts, viewed in … the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’”

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.

Rose v. Gibson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 27, 2022

Collins, Hodges, and Ellis are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim, however, because Rose’s constitutional right against malicious prosecution was not clearly established when he was arrested … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity on this record in any event.

Johnson v. Griffie

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

“Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability when his conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Krout v. … To determine if an official is entitled to the protection of qualified community the Court must determine: 1) if the facts alleged or shown establish a violation of a constitutional right; and 2) that right was clearly

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 2, 2009

Given that the record(s) at issue are kept by the police department and the subject matter involves the suspension of a police department employee, I believe the records(s) clearly qualify as "public records" under this definition … Assuming, however, that some or all the documents qualify as "personnel records," they must be released unless their release constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Fletcher v. Scorza

359 S.W.3d 413 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2010

A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. See id. … In Freeman, we rejected Freeman’s argument that “the natural-parent preference must prevail unless it is established that the natural parent is unfit,” observing that “[Stamps v.

Velvin v. Kent

198 Ark. 267 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 8, 1939

Section 3 of art. 13 of the Constitution provides that "No county seat shall be established or changed without the consent of a majority of the qualified voters of the county to be affected by such change," and 2398, Pope's … If 2398, Pope's Digest, is so construed, it is clearly unconstitutional, as the section of the Constitution above quoted permits only "qualified voters" to participate in the election and to have their votes counted for removal

Raymond Douglas Hardy v. Singleton

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

“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges for liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. … 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

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 2003

to Amendment 29, which authorizes the governor to fill vacancies in various elective offices, but rather pursuant to A.C.A. § 16-17-105 (c), which provides: When there is a vacancy in the office of municipal judge in an established … In my opinion, section 16(D) clearly qualifies section 7(D) of amendment 80, authorizing service in two counties only if (1) the two counties served are contiguous, (2) the county adjacent to the county from which the judge

Monsanto Company v. Arkansas State Plant Board; And Arkansas State Plant Board Members in Their Official Capacities: Walter "Bruce" Alford; Kyle Baltz; Russellblack; Russell Bragg; Robert Campbell; Marty Eaton; John Fricke; Terry Fuller; Greg Hay; Jerry Hyde; Brad Koen; Matthew Marsh; Mark Morgan; Dennie Stokes; Sam Stuckey; Barry Walls; And Dr. Ken North

622 S.W.3d 166 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 6, 2021

Arguing further, Monsanto contends that Regulation 7 is unconstitutional even if it is evaluated under a less stringent “clearly excessive” test. … Simply put, Monsanto’s pleadings do not contain facts sufficient to establish an actual, present controversy.

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).