Case law

Wright v. Madison County Regional Water District

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 29, 2022

When asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, it is a defendant’s initial burden to establish its status as an arm of the State. See, e.g., Woods v. Rondout Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. … Cir.2006) (finding governmental entity invoking Eleventh Amendment immunity bears burden of proving that it qualifies as an arm of the state); Gragg v. Ky.

Ragland v. General Tire and Rubber Co.

297 Ark. 394 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 1989

However, he did not conduct a test to conclusively establish whether it is or not. … The trial court was clearly erroneous in ruling to the contrary. We reverse and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and Remanded.

Heirs of Mills v. Wylie

250 Ark. 703 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 17, 1971

Vaught supra, stating: “If this test applies in determining if a will is unconditional it should apply in determining if it is ambiguous, more especially when as here the extrinsic evidence in the record clearly establishes … Were we to affirm this case, no will would be immune from a possible successful attack, for while the testator might plainly state the disposition desired, there could well be numerous heirs who would go into court to prove

Myers v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

380 S.W.3d 906 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 28, 2011

We agree with appellant that the recordings did not qualify as business records; however, we affirm the circuit court’s admission of the recordings because they were not hearsay. … But, even assuming that appellant has made the proper arguments, DHS argues that the circuit court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.

Luxpro Corp. v. Apple, Inc.

658 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 28, 2009

Specifically, in Luxpro’s response it states that its FAC “clearly takes issue with the validity and the abusive nature of Apple’s litigation.” (Doc. 34). … It is Luxpro’s position that, even if the litigation is protected by Noerr-Pennington immunity, these actions are not.

United States v. Allen

150 F. 152 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 30, 1906

As this count fails to show that he was an employé or that this money came lawfully into his possession by virtue of some employment, it is clearly bad. … The mere fact, that a person is an employé in one department of a common establishment does not make it embezzlement if he feloniously steals property under the control of another employé of the same establishment, unless

Hardesty v. Baptist Health

431 S.W.3d 327 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2013

App. 731 of Civil Procedure 36(b) (2012) clearly states that a trial court can permit withdrawal or amendment of responses to answers to requests for admission. … Once a moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Id.

Roach v. Kirk

228 Ark. 958 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 31, 1958

Clearly, we think the court was warranted in finding this ballot illegal. Mrs. Acey Duncan. We do not detail the evidence which the court found to he sufficient to invalidate Mrs. Duncan’s ballot. … his residence in District 45, and that he was not a qualified voter in School District 3 under Sec. 3-101 Ark.

Hervey v. Tyson's Foods, Inc.

252 Ark. 703 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 29, 1972

Madison Cadillac Co., 191 Ark. 1021 , 88 S.W. 2d 1007 (1935), we held that the burden is on the claimant “to establish clearly his right to exemption.” … Secondly, appellee has not met the burden of clearly showing the right to exemption.

Ex parte Deeds

75 Ark. 542 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 27, 1905

It therefore falls clearly within that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which prohibits a State from denying to “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and is … It is urged, however, on behalf of the State, that the proviso may be stricken out, thus removing the conflict, and leave the remainder of the act unimpaired, under the established rule that statutes constitutional in part

Wooten v. State

370 S.W.3d 475 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 2, 2010

So Wooten has clearly failed to meet the second criteria in Robbins. Indeed, the only criteria that Wooten has successfully met under Robbins is that his case is a death-penalty case that requires heightened scrutiny. … In discussing the criteria necessary to establish the extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a recall of the mandate, the Lee opinion enumerated the Robbins factors as follows: (1) the presence of a defect in the

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 13, 2000

As noted in the above referenced opinion, the Highway Commission clearly has jurisdiction to adopt the recited regulations as applicable to carriers operating entirely intrastate, see A.C.A. §§ 23-2-209 and 23-13-204 , except … Section 382.101 declares that "[t]he purpose of this part is to establish programs designed to help prevent accidents and injuries resulting from the misuse of alcohol or use of controlled substances by drivers of commercial

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 17, 2005

Given that the subject of the request is a state employee, I believe documents containing the requested information clearly qualify as "public records" under this definition. As my predecessor noted in Op. Att'y Gen. … The FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 25, 2008

Given that the record was written by a city official, is kept by the City and the subject matter involves the performance of official functions, I believe the document in question clearly qualifies as a "public record" under … 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

Uncle Ben's, Inc. v. Crowell

482 F. Supp. 1149 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 17, 1980

Uncle Ben’s activities, when tested by the standards set by the Arkansas Supreme Court, clearly constitute “doing business” within the meaning of that phrase as used in the statute. … In a number of early cases the United States Supreme Court established the doctrine that a foreign corporation engaged solely in interstate commerce cannot be required to qualify to do business in any state in which it conducts

Berrios v. Bailey

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 27, 2024

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to both claims. This Court agrees. … of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Wilhite v. State

84 Ark. 67 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 8, 1907

of the evidence her want of chastity before his defense is made out should be explained, and then such explanation should be qualified with the further instruction that if the evidence on this issue, taken together with … If this letter was written prior to appellant’s having intercourse with her, clearly he would be entitled to it as evidence tending to prove his charge that she was not a woman of personal chastity at the time of her seduction

In re Alsofari

588 B.R. 58 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 14, 2017

The facts in the Haugen case, however, clearly demonstrate a level of participation that far exceeds that by Mr. Ahmed. … pay the claim in his plan, were sufficient to establish an informal proof of claim.

Husia Harkuf v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

622 S.W.3d 638 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 13, 2021

Because Harkuf failed to establish that he was entitled to issuance of the writ, we affirm the circuit court’s order. I. … Because circuit courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes, the trial court qualified as a court of competent jurisdiction to hear and determine Harkuf’

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 1992

While it might be concluded at first glance that the county clerk has a vote as a "member of the council" (§ 14-27-102 (c), above), a review of Act 510 as a whole clearly indicates that the "local government jurisdiction[ … The Quorum Court passed Ordinance 91-20 that established an Advisory Committee to handle all aspects of Act 833 of 1991.