Case law

Alexander v. Dallas County Detention Center

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 21, 2021

Individual Capacity Claims “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Even so, as the Court of Appeals noted in a recent decision, there is, “no controlling authority” or “robust consensus of persuasive authority” clearly establishing an inmate’s right to be housed in a facility free from

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 5, 2008

Given that the subjects of the request are city employees, 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."

Little River County Board of Education v. Ashdown Special School District

156 Ark. 549 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 22, 1923

It clearly appears from the language of the act that he is either a county officer or an employee of the county. … The county board of education of each county shall be elected by the qualified electors of each county at the annual school election.

Auditor ex rel. State v. Woodruff

2 Ark. 73 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 15, 1839

The second and third grounds of demurrer specially set forth, are, ih our opinion, clearly untenable; for, although the plaintiff, by making profert of the original writing obligatory, instead of excusing the profert thereof … and fully established by authority, than that by pleading to the action, (and a demurrer is regarded as a plea to the action), without oyer, every objection to the oyer, as that it has not been granted at all, or has been

Greenfield Seed Co. v. Bland

18 Ark. App. 48 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 4, 1986

Evidence established that Cotner had paid all repair bills relating to the defects. … The evidence in the instant case clearly established that red rice could not be detected in a growing field until the rice plant started to flag.

De Julius v. Sumner

373 Ark. 156 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 10, 2008

Dejulius has not established that he was prevented from doing so earlier. Dejulius has also failed to show that his interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. … In fact, at the final approval hearing, Dejulius’s counsel volunteered his opinion that the class counsel were qualified and experienced and reached the settlement properly.

Harrison v. Benton State Bank

6 Ark. App. 355 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 17, 1982

On these facts, we cannot say the chancellor was clearly erroneous in finding Harrison mentally competent when he signed Elmore’s bond. … Finally, Harrison argues that the bond was not enforceable because it was not accompanied with qualifying affidavits, and it was not supported by consideration.

Dundee v. Horton

477 S.W.3d 558 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 2, 2015

There is a decided tendency to permit the fact-finder to hear the testimony of persons having superior knowledge in the given field, unless they are clearly lacking in training and experience. … To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached a standard of care, that damages were sustained, and that the defendant’s actions were a proximate cause of those damages

Williamson v. Sanofi Winthrop Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

347 Ark. 89 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 29, 2001

Clearly, the answer for all potential class members is “No.” But the case does not turn on that question. It would be the same if Williamson listed a common question as “Do all the plaintiffs speak English?” … and “Did you, the employee, meet the sales requirements to qualify under either the initial brochure or the monthly update reports?” These are the common questions.

Gordon v. United States

126 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 21, 1954

Force Base because he failed to qualify for the position during the trial period. … The person invoking the jurisdiction of a Court has the burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction. Surowitz v. U. S., D.C.N.Y.1948, 80 F.Supp. 716, 718 .

Dowden v. Cross County Bank (In Re Brittenum & Associates, Inc.)

83 B.R. 574 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 26, 1988

As additional collateral, the Bank claims it has a right to set-off against a savings account established at the Bank in the name of Jon R. Brittenum and Associates, Inc. … Clearly, the letters express agreements and recite mutual exchanges of obligations sufficient to meet the essentials of a contract.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Hill

316 Ark. 251 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 7, 1994

That Report clearly and specifically determined that the U.S. … The court in Eu considered the severability of a void provision in a constitutional amendment establishing term limits.

Christian-Holderfield v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2011 Ark. App. 534 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 14, 2011

Additionally, neither child had received any immunizations, nor had they been seen by a physician. At the adjudication hearing in August 2006, Ms. … The court, however, does not have to determine that every factor considered be established by clear and convincing evidence. Welch, supra.

Brewer v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

71 Ark. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 25, 2001

Clearly a parent who does not notice such obvious signs of abuse of a child living within his or her home is unfit. We do not reach appellant’s argument that ADHS failed to establish any abuse to Logan. … Rather, the court concluded that it, as the Juvenile Division of the White County Chancery Court, qualified as a court of competent jurisdiction and that, as such, it could determine from the evidence before it whether Cheryl

Oden Optical Co. v. Optique Du Mond, Ltd.

268 Ark. 1105 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 23, 1980

The principle that a court should not exercise its jurisdiction when the defendant’s presence in the geographical jurisdiction was procured by trickery is established in Arkansas. Robinson v. … serve the process invited or inveigled the presence of the prospective defendant, and like the New York Supreme Court, we have found no case which strikes down the process when the initiation of the recipient’s presence was clearly

Raper v. Deen

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 31, 2022

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).

John Kyle Day v. Laura "missy" Michelle Wardlaw; Bradley County Board of Election Commissioners; Desha County Board of Election Commissioners; Drew County Board of Election Commissioners; Cole Jester, in His Official Capacity as Arkansas Secretary of State; Republican Party of Arkansas; And Sharon Stuthard, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the State Committee of the Republican Party of Arkansas

2026 Ark. 21 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 11, 2026

The circuit court’s finding that only a bond forfeiture occurred in this case is not clearly erroneous. … I would also, however, dismiss Day’s claims against the Secretary of State because of sovereign immunity.

Pacheco-Alvarez v. State

540 S.W.3d 692 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 13, 2017

Introduction of the actual controlled substance is not essential if a qualified person has analyzed it and found it to be the substance on which the charge was based. Parker v. … The fact she told a completely different story when she testified at trial merely made the issue one of credibility, and the jury clearly credited her statement in the video over her trial testimony. Affirmed.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 23, 2004

This fact is important when discussing whether additional early voting polling places can be established as well in Marion and Newton Counties. … Again, the statutes relating to early voting do not clearly address the situation at hand.

McDaniel v. Spencer

457 S.W.3d 641 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 5, 2015

Article 2, § 3, of the Arkansas Constitution states, The equality of all persons before the law is recognized, and shall ever remain inviolate; nor shall any citizen ever be deprived of any right, privilege or immunity; nor … It further states that no other affidavit or verification shall be required to establish the genuineness of such signatures.