Case law

Bradley Snider v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

612 S.W.3d 199 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 28, 2020

App. 119. 3 the disputed fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. 9 A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support … App. 352, 584 S.W.3d 258. 9  Having carefully examined the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that counsel has complied with the requirements established by the

Jones v. Clinton

974 F. Supp. 712 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 22, 1997

Ramirez, 967 F.2d 1413, 1415-16 (9th Cir.1992) (concluding that a parole officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for depriving a woman of her clearly established due process right to bodily privacy by entering a bathroom … He thus argues that the sequence of events plaintiff has alleged does not establish causation.

Kantor v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child

559 S.W.3d 747 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 12, 2018

Here, the extensive documentation regarding Rebecca found in the service plan arguably qualifies as an evaluation. … Because we hold that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that DHS proved Rebecca's incapacitation as required by the statute, we do not address Linda's argument that David was not qualified in that he had not appointed

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 16, 2011

qualify as employee evaluation/job performance records. … A letter of suspension or dismissal may or may not qualify as an "employee evaluation/job performance record" subject to the standard of review set forth above.

Bollinger v. Watson

187 Ark. 1044 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 16, 1933

Having in mind the principles stated in the cases reviewed and recognizing the cardinal canon of construction that a statute will be upheld unless clearly within constitutional inhibition and where that question is doubtful … It is argued that the act deprives the appellants of substantial property rights; that they had established their places of business without the limits of the border towns and within adjacent territory, and the practical

Frye v. State

313 S.W.3d 10 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 5, 2009

In sum, argues Appellant, the alleged incident and excitement had clearly ended that evening by the time the family had moved into their new apartment when the victim made the statement. … Thus, “[o]nce the admissibility of character evidence is established under Rule 404, Rule 405 establishes the methods of proof which may be utilized.” Smith v. State, 316 Ark. 407, 411 , 872 S.W.2d 848, 845 (1994).

Calvin v. Randall

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 29, 2024

Even assuming Chief Randall’s conduct turned out to be a substantive due process violation, he is protected from suit and liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity unless it was clearly established—at the time … Burch are enough to defeat qualified immunity at this stage.

Lockhart v. Siloam Springs, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 22, 2023

Lockhart can overcome qualified immunity by showing his right was clearly established. Garcia, 984 F.3d at 663. … Lockhart’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, Officer Ware is not entitled to qualified immunity on the illegal stop and false arrest claims. C.

Walnut Grove School District No. 6 v. County Board of Education

204 Ark. 354 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 25, 1942

Act 144 is entitled, “An act to establish a minimum length of school term, and for other purposes.” This act was considered and construed in the case of Stobaugh v. County Board of Education, 182 Ark. 675 , 32 S. … In other words, the administrative construction generally should be clearly wrong before it is overturned.

Alfredo Martinez v. Rliable Poultry, LLC

2026 Ark. App. 313 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 20, 2026

This clause clearly meant that A&L Hernandez should consider OSHA safety standards in performing the work; it does not say that Reliable agrees to enforce OSHA safety standards on A&L Hernandez employees. … On the other hand, the exclusive-remedy provision in Tennessee immunizes both the subcontractor and the general contractor as long as workers’ 12 compensation insurance

Barnes v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration

2012 Ark. App. 237 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 4, 2012

ABC clearly defines the statutory term “entertainment” to include “food service,” and it clearly regarded Lamar’s Bistro and Bayou Bistro to be part and parcel of the same operation. … We cannot say that the Board is clearly wrong in its interpretation.

McElroy v. Stamps

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 4, 2025

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 actions unless “they violated a federal ‘statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.’” Webster v. … Second, even if it were clearly established that these conditions qualify as “punitive,” it is undisputed that Plaintiff was afforded a hearing.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 7, 2004

Given that the subjects of the request are all state employees, I believe documents containing the requested information clearly qualify as "public records" under this definition. As my predecessor noted in Op. … The Court also stated that "all FOIA requestors have an equal, and equally qualified, right to information. . . ." Id. at 499 .

Kuhn v. Martinez

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 17, 2024

The Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. See, e.g., Krout v. … In discussing when constitutional right is clearly established, the Eighth Circuit in Perry v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 5, 2001

The question, then, is whether the debt instruments evidencing a TIFIA loan would qualify as "revenue bonds." … In my opinion, assuming the terms of repayment fall within one of the three Harris categories, the documents evincing the indebtedness would clearly qualify as "revenue bonds."

Broomfield v. Columbia County Sheriff's Department

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 17, 2023

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 … Because Plaintiff cannot establish the violation of a constitutional right, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment regarding this claim.

McClain v. Tuttle

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 19, 2024

or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … McClain’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force.

Sarah Sanders, in Her Official Capacity as Governor of Arkansas; Lindsay Wallace, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Corrections; And the Arkansas Department of Corrections v. Arkansas Board of Corrections; And Benny Magness, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Arkansas Board of Corrections

2025 Ark. 102 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 5, 2025

We conclude that the circuit court’s factual findings that there would be irreparable harm were not clearly erroneous. … .1 Even if that was not so, the Board would still lose because it failed to show irreparable harm—a necessary element to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction.2 Therefore, I also join the other dissenting opinion

Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Morgan

364 Ark. 358 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 8, 2005

Specifically, OCSE suggests that the rulings are clearly erroneous because dismissals with prejudice are void in paternity actions, pursuant to the rulings in Davis v. … That statute provides procedures for challenging the procedures or results of a paternity test: (5) (A) A written report of the test results prepared by the duly qualified expert conducting the test or by a duly qualified

Farmers Bank v. Fuqua Homes, Inc.

259 Ark. 38 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 22, 1975

Ann. § 27-619 (Supp. 1973) to establish venue in Ashley County. … Since we determine a contract action is involved, appellee, admittedly a foreign corporation, clearly falls within the provisions of Ark. Stat.