Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hendricks v. Hodges

122 Ark. 82 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 24, 1916

The purpose of those statutes was to fix a time for canvassing the returns and to put a limit upon the time in which officers may qualify. … The statute clearly contemplates that. officers elected shall immediately take office and enter upon the discharge of the duties thereof.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Short

381 S.W.3d 834 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 16, 2011

By an order dated November 18, 2009, the county court rejected ATRS’s contention that the property qualified for an exemption. … The bedrock principles of law on this subject were established over a century ago. In the case of Brodie v.

Harper v. State

7 Ark. App. 28 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1982

There was evidence in the record that appellant had sold marijuana on at least one prior occasion and clearly he was able to produce a large amount in a short period of time. … Defense counsel objected on the grounds that the officer was not an expert qualified to make a quantitative analysis of dry weight.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 23, 1999

The Executive Director of ATRS serves as the Trustee of the Tuition Savings Trust that is established by Act 996. … Moreover, Act 996 specifically articulated the immunity of the Tuition Savings Program, the Committee, and the state, in connection with loss incurred by any person as a result of participating in the program.

Davenport v. Little Rock, City of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 23, 2020

immunity. … Standard for the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Rule 12(c) “Judgment on the pleadings should be granted only if the moving party clearly establishes that there are no material issues of fact and that it is entitled

Kelly v. Kelly

341 Ark. 596 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 2000

Standard of Review We review chancery cases de novo on the record, and we will not reverse a finding of fact by the chancery court unless it is clearly erroneous. Ark. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Myrick v. … Here, there is no history of bonus income, and the trial court acknowledged the uncertainty of whether James would even qualify for a bonus in the foreseeable future given the business-expense calculation that would be required

Chaney v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 30, 2020

The deputies are entitled to qualified immunity unless they: “‘(1) violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of [their] conduct was clearly established at the time.’” Lane v. … to qualified immunity.

Ellenberger v. Hayden

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 13, 2024

Having found no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant Hayden violated Ellenberger’s constitutional rights, Defendant Hayden is entitled to qualified immunity. See e.g., Krout v. … Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557, 564 (8th Cir. 2009) (Unless the facts make out a violation of a constitutional right, the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity). 7

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 30, 2008

To determine whether a disclosure rises to a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, the Arkansas Supreme Court has established a balancing test. Young , supra . … Because this document qualifies as an employee evaluation or job performance record, it may only be disclosed if the above three elements are met.

Roberts v. State

2016 Ark. 118 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 17, 2016

Roberts also argues that this court should establish a mandatory postconviction proceeding and review for death-penalty defendants who waive their postconviction rights. … Indeed, issues of competency are of utmost importance in death penalty cases, and the circuit court’s fact-finding is not immune from review. See Newman v. State, 2014 Ark. 7; Harris v.

Davis v. Dahmm

763 F. Supp. 1010 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 25, 1991

As the cases cited above indicate clearly, in order to comply with due process, the owner must be able to challenge the seizure of the vehicle, at least before the sale contemplated by §§ 27-50-1209 — 1210. … Whether defendant, Dahmm, would be immune in tort by virtue of his questionable status at the time as a city police officer, or whether he lost his immunity by action ultra vires need not be resolved at this time, for there

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 12, 2006

RESPONSE In my opinion, the answer to this question is a qualified "yes." … However, because that right is qualified, I believe her choice of surname might be subject to a later challenge in a legal proceeding between the parties.

Bakos v. Kryder

260 Ark. 621 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 8, 1976

I hereby establish a fund to be called “The Bakos Fund.” … These provisions clearly reflect that the testatrix, contrary to appellants’ assertions, did not intend that any part of her estate should pass intestate, but meant for all funds except the specific legacies to become a part

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 15, 2005

Given that the subjects of the request are all city employees, I believe documents containing the requested information clearly qualify as "public records" under this definition. As my predecessor noted in Op. … The FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."