Case law

Randy Myers v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

2022 Ark. 156 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 22, 2022

Myers also raised in his petition, but abandons on appeal, certain claims that there was no proper chain of custody established for the evidence collected; that the trial judge violated judicial ethics rules; and that he … 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 Myers’s

Bryan v. Cradduck

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 25, 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).

Stanley v. Katherine Finnegan

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 20, 2020

To overcome a defense of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the Stanleys must “assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation … To the contrary, it was clearly established that ‘witnesses should be immune from civil rights suits alleging perjurious testimony.’”) (quoting Myers v. Bull, 599 F.2d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 1979)).

South Beach Beverage Co. v. Harris Brands, Inc.

355 Ark. 347 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2003

Pepper business operation, contrary to the case before us, was established and clearly qualified as a place ofbusiness. … This, South Beach maintains, qualifies as reasonable.

Andrews v. Heirs of Bellis

297 Ark. 3 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 31, 1988

There is no doubt that had the instrument last referred to been offered for recordation as a separate instrument, it would not have qualified because there is no acknowledgment or jurat. … The original was never offered in evidence at the trial nor was it established that it had been destroyed.

Davis v. Adams

231 Ark. 197 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 16, 1959

Davis had qualified by making the required bond — if her physical competency to serve had been established — and she had thereafter been removed as a result of the petition by Adams — the question would be squarely before … The record before us clearly justifies this removal.

Robinson v. State

353 Ark. 372 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 29, 2003

This court has held that guilt can be established without eyewitness testimony and evidence of guilt is not less because it is circumstantial. Ross v. State, 346 Ark. 225 , 57 S.W.3d 152 (2001); Gregory v. … We hold that there clearly was substantial evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Robinson was guilty of first-degree murder.

Metzgar v. Rodgers

83 Ark. App. 354 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 5, 2003

The trial court’s finding of fact on this issue is not clearly erroneous. In fact, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the original CDs’ interest was reinvested or rolled over through the years. … Fehrman’s testimony clearly demonstrated that they were the same. As with the other tracing issues, this is a finding of fact that is not clearly erroneous.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stotts

49 S.W.3d 667 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jul 5, 2001

Thrash's report contained no qualifying words, such as, maybe or possibly, regarding appellee's injury. Dr. Thrash simply found that appellee had suffered the injuries. We hold that Dr. … establishes the causal connection."

Grable v. State

298 Ark. 489 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 1, 1989

Just as the defendant has no duty to establish any fact proving his innocence, Griffin v. … Clearly the state is in the better position to establish whatever charges it has made against the defendant. We have no doubt it is the duty of the state to bring a proper charge.

Marcyniuk v. State

436 S.W.3d 122 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 5, 2014

Appellant alleges that prejudice was established because there is “a very real likelihood that at least one of the jurors would never have accepted the defense.” … Moreover, the State asked the jury as follows: [T]o sit on a jury you have to be what’s called both life qualified and death qualified. . . .

Hershey v. Multi-Purpose Civic Center Facilities Board for Pulaski County, Arkansas

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 14, 2020

Apr. 27, 2017) (officer entitled to qualified immunity when arresting protestors blocking access to an office building); see also Habiger v. City of Fargo, 905 F.Supp. 709, 718–19 (D.N.D. … Government officials are immune from suit unless they violate clearly established rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).

Health Resources of Arkansas, Inc. v. Flener

374 Ark. 208 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 11, 2008

Once the 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. See id. … The policy clearly explains that this special retirement benefit will be calculated using the rate being paid to the employee at the time of retirement.

Hubbard v. State

306 Ark. 153 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 24, 1991

MICHAEL SIMON’S TESTIMONY EXPRESSING AN OPINION AS TO APPELLANT’S MENTAL CAPACITY BECAUSE HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED AS A PSYCHIATRIST. … Clearly then, with the period in excess of eight months excluded as a result of appellant’s psychiatric evaluations, the state has complied with the speedy trial rules.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 7, 1995

Thus, until Act 947 becomes effective, persons may register up to December 20, 1995, and thereby qualify to vote in the January 9 election. … It is well-established that legislative enactments will ordinarily be deemed to apply prospectively only, unless the interest for retroactive application is clearly expressed or necessarily implied. Arkansas Rural Med.

Clark v. Randolph County

71 Ark. App. 112 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 27, 2000

Randolph County then filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the county and its officers and employees, while acting on behalf of the county, have tort immunity. … Our standard of review with regard to summary judgment is well established.

Burns v. Stewart

382 S.W.3d 699 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 9, 2011

The actions of Stewart and Jackson clearly demonstrated an agreement between the two of them that the fence would be treated as the boundary between their respective properties. … If Stewart’s actions regarding the fence line do not qualify as acquiescence, I fail to see what would. I would reverse the decision of the trial court.

Newport Manufacturing Co. v. Alton

130 Ark. 542 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 8, 1917

Holman, 90 Ark. 555 . (1) The cases last cited clearly announce the rule that an employee may continue, in the exercise of due care, to use a tool or defective piece of machinery for a reasonable time, upon promise of an … expert testimony were not sufficiently qualified.

Gibson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

620 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 29, 1985

Plaintiff qualified for promotion to Locomotive Engineer on December 23, 1973. 4. Plaintiff became a Seventh Day Adventist in 1975. … Plaintiff was informed and aware that if there were no qualified engineers available to relieve him, he would be expected to work. 15.

Routh Wrecker Service, Inc. v. Washington

335 Ark. 232 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 19, 1998

Hence, Washington’s motion for findings of fact following a jury trial does not qualify as a Rule 52(b) motion. … The issue raised by Washington concerns judicial immunity for witnesses testifying in private litigation.