Case law

Williams v. Gulick

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 6, 2024

Personal capacity claims “are those which allege personal liability for individual actions by officials in the course of their duties; these claims do not require proof of any policy and qualified immunity may be raised … Regarding the expectation of privacy, the Court noted that parole was “an established variation on imprisonment” on which the statute imposed a clearly stated warrantless search condition. Id. at 852.

Leashebia Davis v. State of Arkansas

685 S.W.3d 909 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 11, 2024

The record before us establishes the following facts. I. … produce the result; and (2) [t]he conduct of the defendant was clearly insufficient to produce the result.”

Skokos v. Skokos

344 Ark. 420 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 19, 2001

Theodore established a twenty-five-year possessory interest in these two properties. … She also fails to show the trial judge was clearly erroneous in accepting the valuation method utilized by Theodore’s expert testimony.

Nations v. Nations

670 F. Supp. 1432 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 9, 1987

Five pages of the Jones opinion are dedicated to quotations from the legislative history of Title III evidencing Congress’ intent to establish an “across-the-board prohibition on all unauthorized electronic surveillance.” … As the court in Jones noted, “state law is far from uniform on the doctrine of interspousal immunity.” Id. at 672 . Therefore, the controlling Arkansas precedent on the issue becomes an important consideration.

St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Hydrick

109 Ark. 231 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 7, 1913

The fact that the doctors rendered the accounts to the appellee, and that he acquiesced in the amounts thereof tends to establish the fact that appellee was indebted to the physicians for professional services in the sum … Cantrell, 37 Ark. 522 , this court, in commenting upon a similar instruction, said that it was “clearly correct.”

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 2, 2004

It establishes requirements with respect to employee work attendance and attendance records, areas clearly falling within the Quorum Court's local legislative authority, assuming no conflict with policies that bear uniquely … This of course assumes that the "deputized" employees would, in fact, thereby qualify as law enforcement officers.

Gibson v. Heiman

261 Ark. 236 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 7, 1977

The determination whether a non-expert witness has sufficient knowledge of the matter in question or has had sufficient opportunity for observation to be qualified to state an opinion lies largely within the sound judicial … discretion of the trial judge and is not reviewable on appeal unless so clearly erroneous as to manifest an abuse of discretion.

Cummings v. City of Fayetteville

294 Ark. 151 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 21, 1987

None of the directors named in the blank petition were made parties to the suit, although they were ostensibly the target of Cummings’ action and clearly have interests paramount to that of the city. … So, we question whether he has established he has a case. In Cummings’ complaint, he states he wants the court to declare the statute unconstitutional.

Hunter v. Runyan

382 S.W.3d 643 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 2011

This court clearly stated in UHS of Arkansas that [o]ur declaratory judgment statute does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction. … The | ^record therefore clearly supports the circuit court’s finding regarding Shepherd’s purpose.

Arkansas Pharmacist's Ass'n v. Arkansas State & Public School Life & Health Insurance Board

352 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 13, 2003

the law authorizing the Department to establish such facilities. … The evidence clearly supports the Board’s position.

Moltz v. Dalrymple

239 Ark. 393 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 3, 1965

For reversal of the decree, appellants urge that the evidence in the case clearly establishes that an encroachment exists. … Two highly qualified registered professional engineers testified at trial, Walter Combs who had surveyed for appellants, and Leo Tyra for appellee. Mr.

Victoria Allen, Tina Pankey, and Donald Long v. Jesse Allen

2021 Ark. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 26, 2021

Donald’s attorney argued that a putative father has standing to intervene in a divorce action to seek the establishment of paternity so long as it is in the child’s best interest. … Child-custody matters are reviewed de novo on appeal, but the circuit court’s findings are not reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. Janjam v. Rajeshwari, 2020 Ark. App. 448, 611 S.W.3d 202.

Rees v. Smith

301 S.W.3d 467 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 2, 2009

However, there is no indication that the trial court was unaware of the law; appellants’ counsel clearly explained the availability of Rule 37 sanctions at the pretrial hearing. … Everett, appellee’s purported expert witness, because he did not qualify as an expert.

Gill v. Arkansas Employment Security Division

306 Ark. 164 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 24, 1991

Shortly thereafter, he was advised by AESD that the agency had established 3.4 percent (the amount fixed by statute for new employers generally) as the experience rate applicable to his new firm. Ark. … But equally as clearly, those requests could not have related to a June 1987 acquisition and the resulting transfer of experience, and it is that acquisition to which the chancery court referred.

Luedemann v. Wade

323 Ark. 161 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 22, 1996

The trial court then asked defense counsel if the statement could be qualified as an excited utterance under Ark. R. … Evid. 803(2) by establishing the time interval between the accident and the statement and establishing the defendant’s appearance and emotional state.

Berks v. State

501 S.W.3d 366 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 27, 2016

Deyoub specifically addressed the question of whether Berks qualified under the legal criteria of the statute, and, although he considered Berks’s history of treatment in his evaluation, he concluded that Berks failed to … Berks provided no supporting facts to establish that Dr.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 3, 2006

TO OWN AND OPERATE SEVEN CASINO GAMING ESTABLISHMENTS ONE EACH IN SEBASTIAN, PULASKI, GARLAND, MILLER, CRITTENDEN, BOONE AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES; AND TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FUND AND THE ARKANSAS GAMING … As a consequence, these issues must be clearly delineated prior to their accurate summarization in a ballot title for your measure.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 22, 2008

In my opinion, the answer to this question is clearly "no." A similar issue was discussed in the Ingram case mentioned earlier in this opinion. … The General Assembly has provided certain statutory authority for tax-qualified "defined contribution plans" whereby university employees may defer income.

Robinson Insurance & Real Estate Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

366 F. Supp. 307 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 27, 1973

Without establishing such a relationship, they must be viewed as completely separate incidents and as such lacking in materiality. … The distinction between limitation of liability clauses and liquidated damages clauses is clearly established.

Hobbs v. Jones

412 S.W.3d 844 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 22, 2012

Where a legislative body has declared a policy and fixed a primary standard, it may generally delegate the authority to establish rules, regulations, or minimum standards that are reasonably necessary to execute the expressed … Third, determining the methodology and the chemicals to be used are matters best left to the Department of Corrections to determine because it has personnel better qualified to make such determinations.