Case law

Plant v. Wilbur

345 Ark. 487 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 9, 2001

Thirdly, I submit that it is equally unclear whether the area in which Plant was located, when injured, qualified as a “restricted area” under the terms of the exculpatory agreement. See, e.g, Arnold v. … We should not, in my opinion, allow parties who promote dangerous sports activities to be effectively immunized from liability when a spectator is injured by a flying wheel (or puck, or folding chair) because the party promoting

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 27, 2006

in the following manner: (a) Divide the district into zones with one director position assigned to each zone: (b) Require a director to be a resident of the zone for which he or she is running; and (c) Permit all of the qualified … In my opinion, this clearly establishes the legislature's general control over the method(s) of electing members of a school district's board of directors.

Mercouri v. State

540 S.W.3d 328 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 31, 2018

Mercouri has unsuccessfully established how counsel's performance was deficient. E. … Jurors are presumed unbiased and qualified to serve. Id.

Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Darr

246 Ark. 204 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 24, 1969

It was cited to support “established procedure.” The case before us fads within the second rule. That is because Mrs. … Darr was not qualified to give value testimony and it is clear that her award was enhanced as a result of her opinion. The verdict was in excess of her highest value witness by $6750.

MUNICIPAL HEALTH BENEFIT FUND v. RICKY HENDRIX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL ARKANSANS SIMILARLY SITUATED

2020 Ark. 235 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 11, 2020

Commonality is satisfied when “the defendant’s acts, independent of any action by the class members, establish a common question relating to the entire class.” Id. at 97, 60 S.W.3d at 433. … Carpenter Farms Medical Group, LLC, 2020 Ark. 213, we held that the issue of exhaustion was not ripe in an interlocutory appeal about sovereign immunity. Our holding was expressly confined to sovereign-immunity appeals.

Walker v. Allred

179 Ark. 1104 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 23, 1929

It is his contention that the sole purpose of act No. 77 of the Acts of 1927 was to repeal that part only of act No. 32 regulating the salaries of the officers of Carroll County, which intent is established by an application … It is a well-settled rule of law that, where the will of the Legislature is clearly expressed, the court should adhere to the literal expression of the enactment without regard to consequences, and every construction derived

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 28, 2009

With regard to any other records relating to the suspensions at issue, I should note that a letter of suspension or dismissal may or may not qualify as an "employee evaluation/job performance record" subject to the standard … As always, the person claiming the right will have the burden of establishing it. Accord , Ark. Ops. Att'y Gen. Nos. 2007-001 ; 2006-141 and 2001-122.

Powell v. State of Arkansas

310 F. Supp. 142 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 25, 1970

, nor does it confer immunity from prosecution in state court on such charges. … But before establishing the regime the individual petitioners propose, Congress would no doubt fully consider many questions.

McNutt v. United Gas, Coke & Chemical Workers

108 F. Supp. 871 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 17, 1952

Therefore, venue in this district would be proper only if it is “otherwise provided by law”, and no such law establishing proper venue in this district has been brought to the attention of the Court. … Since there is no question in the instant case of either equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, clearly 8 U.S.C.A. Section 47 has no application.

Hagen v. Payne

222 F. Supp. 548 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 17, 1963

This immunity rule is based on the “no funds” theory, Fordyce v. Women’s Christian Nat. Library Ass’n, (1906) 79 Ark. 550 , 96 S.W. 155 , 7 L.R.A.,N.S., 485, and upon the sovereign immunity doctrine, Handley v. … L.R.2d, Sec. 8, p. 1189, the annotator states: “Frequently the cases do not indicate clearly whether the defendant driver of a school bus was operating as an employee of the school district or as an independent contractor

Arkansas Department of Economic Development v. William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation

364 Ark. 40 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 27, 2005

for-profit businesses, according to the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of a “legitimate business enterprise;” (2) the Foundation was already exempt from paying corporate income tax, and ADED determined that the law “clearly … in subsection (b), particularly whether the Foundation qualifies as “a corporate or regional headquarters with no retail sales to the general public.”

Vasquez v. Hill

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 1, 2018

Qualified Immunity Analyzing a claim of qualified immunity requires a two-step inquiry. Jones v. McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2012). … was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Horton v. Simer

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 31, 2019

Alternatively, Deputy Simer would be entitled to qualified immunity. … Deputy Simer is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Morgan v. Washington County, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 7, 2022

a constitutional violation; and (6) the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Further, having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation, Officer Harris is entitled to qualified immunity.

Terry v. Dycus

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 16, 2023

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider two questions: (1) do the facts alleged by plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) if … so, was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 4, 2011

Given that the subjects of the request are public employees, I believe documents containing the requested information clearly qualify as "public records" under this definition. … Given that exemptions from disclosure must be narrowly construed, it is the burden of an individual resisting disclosure to establish that his privacy interests outweighed that of the public's under the circumstances presented

Divanovich v. State

271 Ark. 104 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 10, 1980

The record reflects that appellants’ defense attorney was threatened with jail and was refused the opportunity to make a record to establish that the jury heard the threat. … Although the appellant did not give a statement concerning the murder, the implication to the jury was clearly that appellant wanted to confess.

Malone v. Does

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 13, 2023

Qualified Immunity The County Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them in their individual capacities based on qualified immunity. (Doc. … 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.” Harlow v.

Martz v. Simmons

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 14, 2019

As noted above, the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the law regarding substantive due process in connection with extended detentions was clearly established in 2016. … Accordingly, as Plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, the Court finds that Sheriff Simmons is not entitled to qualified

Gammill v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

346 Ark. 161 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 4, 2001

It is only necessary that he be unable to perform any of such acts in order to qualify for benefits. [Citing Avemco and Alexander.] We clearly expressed a preference for an instruction using the word “any” in Avemco. … Nor does the mere fact that one continues to work at his regular job establish a lack of disability.