Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 10, 2001

However, I believe this general power is qualified by an implied proviso that the contract serve some legitimate public purpose. … Moreover, I believe loaning a van to a church would clearly violate U.S. Const. amend. I , which prohibits any government action "respecting an establishment of religion," and Ark. Const. art.

Cannady v. St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center

537 S.W.3d 259 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 8, 2018

Accordingly, the circuit court’s conclusion that this threshold issue was a factual 117question for the jury was clearly erroneous. … It violates the separation of powers for this court to create law that completely immunizes an employer against vicarious liability if the |1Remployer promulgates a policy that proscribes a certain behavior.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 1, 2010

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

Long v. Smith

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

constitutional . . . right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’” 133 Under Supreme Court precedent, a right is clearly established when “‘[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently … Defendants do not point to any state-law grounds for qualified immunity. Instead, Defendants’ entire qualified immunity argument rests on federal law. Id. at 9– 11.

Daniels Ex Rel. Daniels v. Lutz

407 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 27, 2005

Lutz’s intent, either of which arguably might void the qualified privilege. See Hinson v. Holt, 776 So.2d 804, 810-11 (Aa.Civ.App.1998). … Rather, the testimony of a qualified medical professional would be required. 4 .

Roberts v. Priest

334 Ark. 503 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 15, 1998

We cannot say that the master was clearly erroneous by not counting these signatures. … Where, as here, the sponsor fails to comply with and ignores and abuses these simple procedural requirements, established by our Constitution to protect all the residents and taxpayers of Arkansas, neither the Secretary of

City of Fort Smith v. Tate

311 Ark. 405 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 11, 1993

We said: Section 81-1310(c)(2) clearly places a maximum amount upon “weekly benefits” for death and permanent total disability for which an employer or his insurance carrier is liable; significantly, however, the section … The delimitation of benefits in 1968 and the establishment of the Fund in 1973 reflects the goal of adequately compensating the widow and dependents of a deceased employee.

Dickerson v. Okolona

98 Ark. 206 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 13, 1911

three days after the claimant shall have notified them in writing that he has appointed his assessor, appoint one assessor on the part of the city, and they shall, within five days thereafter, select the third assessor, and qualify … This remedy is manifestly not exclusive, for the right to maintain an action for compensation where the proper amount has not been allowed is clearly recognized in the statute.

Norcross v. Sneed

573 F. Supp. 533 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 21, 1983

The Fifth Circuit said in this regard: (1) [T]he disabled claimant may establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination by proving that: (a) except for his physical handicap, he is qualified for the position; (b) he … To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 21, 2008

In other words, the DOT has established as the "only driving prohibition period for a controlled substances violation," the "completion of rehabilitation requirements and a return-to-duty test with a negative result," id. … and absolutely immune from liability under another . . .") .

Davault v. Parks

190 Ark. 370 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 18, 1935

Parks was named in the will as one of the executors and qualified and is acting in that capacity. … The rule of law alluded to is clearly stated in the case of Alford v. Johnson, 103 Ark. 236 , 146 S.

Hempstead v. Auditor

16 Ark. 57 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1855

for two years, and until his successor was elected and qualified, and receive a salary of $500 out of the Internal Improvement fund. … Until such maps, &c., were furnished by the Auditor to the Agent for the "Washington district, (the petitioner,) it would seem to have been clearly the intention of the Legislature, that the Land Agent for the State should

Morgan v. State

510 S.W.3d 253 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 23, 2017

To the extent that Morgan’s claims alleged that the proof used to establish his status as a habitual offender was insufficient or that he was not provided an adequate hearing, those claims were not cognizable. … As in Wooten, Morgan also alleged that the statute was unconstitutionally applied because his prior convictions included out-of-state felony convictions, and the statute did not clearly define a “violent felony” with regard

Williams v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 8, 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 … if so, was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Stanley v. Gray

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 28, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Qualified Immunity, Official Capacity Claims, & Respondeat Superior Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s failure to establish a constitutional violation entitles them to qualified immunity for his excessive force claim.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 27, 2008

Both Article 19, § 3, as interpreted, and A.C.A. § 14-48-110 (f) clearly require residence in the city to be served. See Op. … qualified elector of the city.

Burge

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 2, 2026

The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). II. … Consequently, Plaintiff has not established that he is a qualified individual with a disability. As a result, Plaintiff’s ADA claim fails. B.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 23, 2011

qualify as "public records" under this definition. … circumstances to observe that the employees' privacy interest in nondisclosure is not insubstantial." 9 Given that exemptions from disclosure must be narrowly construed, it is the burden of an individual resisting disclosure to establish

Leeuwen v. Boone County Officer Cameron

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 22, 2021

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In order to overcome the protection afforded by qualified immunity, the plaintiff must put forth “sufficient evidence to find a violation of a Constitutional right, . . .

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.