Case law

Marchant v. City of Little Rock, Ark.

557 F. Supp. 475 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 22, 1983

If these individuals had been sued by the plaintiff, based on the proof adduced in this case, they would have been entitled to qualified immunity as prison officials. Procunier v. … Butler, supra (rabid bat case) where the Eighth Circuit held that prison officials were entitled to good faith immunity in a negligence action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 25, 2004

these opinions, which I believe addresses your question directly: I assume your concern is that the city might be restricted from engaging in what the courts generally refer to as" government speech" — i.e., speech that clearly … As one commentator has noted: "Unless government is taking a position with respect to religion, where the special strictures of the establishment clause come into play, courts consider government communication to be a function

Brazil v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 24, 2020

Williams is less qualified than her.3 Further, Plaintiff alleges that another younger and less qualified person, Elmira McCastle was placed in an Administrative Analyst position. … Even if Plaintiff were able to establish a prima facie case, the Defendants’ state reason of placing Ms.

Hayes v. Henderson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 5, 2023

Having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation, the TAPD Officers are also 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). B.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 31, 2007

This interpretation will be upheld unless is it "clearly wrong." I cannot state that it is "clearly wrong." … Corporate officers could qualify, however. Id.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 27, 2002

The council does have the authority to establish the procedure for making purchases. . . . This procedure, in my opinion, however, cannot obliterate the mayor's statutory authority to make purchases. … I am unaware of any provision of law that in any sense qualifies the clear meaning of A.C.A. § 14-58-303 .

Al M. Williams v. Erma Jean Davis; The Estate of Earlee Walker; And Ricco Walker, Administrator of the Estate of Earlee Walker

625 S.W.3d 243 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 28, 2021

Simply being a former step-child does not establish an in loco parentis relationship. Moreover, the Court, after observing Mr. … “Something more must be shown to qualify as standing in loco parentis.” Id. at 435, 867 S.W.2d at 456.

Logan v. Moody

219 Ark. 697 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 10, 1951

In effect the Court held that custom and usage were sufficient to override the clear wording of the said order of 1926 which established two distinct precincts. … The quoted language is clearly in point, and requires a holding that no voter in Boas-North could vote in Boas-South, or vice-versa.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 20, 1989

Act 60 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1961 (A.C.A. 18-13-101 et seq.) provided for the introduction of the condominium system in Arkansas by the establishment of "horizontal property regimes." A.C.A. 18-13-103 . … Indeed, the manner in which a statute has been construed by executive and administrative officers is to be given consideration and will not be disregarded unless clearly wrong. MORRIS v.

Arkansas State Board of Optometry v. Dodge

210 Ark. 404 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 30, 1946

The citizens of each state of the United States are, under* this statute, entitled to all the privileges and immunities accorded citizens of this state. “The justice of such a statute is obvious. … When a nonresident defendant establishes an office or agency for the transaction of business in any county in this state under this statute, he thereby voluntarily appoints his own agent, in charge of said office or agency

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 8, 2002

Brown, 335 Ark. 272 , 948 S.W.2d 1 (1998); Citizens To Establish A Reform Party v. Priest, 325 Ark. 257 , 926 S.W.2d 432 (1996); Henson v. Fleet Mortgage Co., 319 Ark. 491 , 892 S.W.2d 250 (1995); Neely v. … The restrictions set forth at A.C.A. §§ 6-62-803 and -804 clearly appear to fall within this category of traditional practice.

Terri Simmons v. Bryan Steele

2023 Ark. App. 386 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 13, 2023

affirm.1 1 There are different statutory requirements for granting a guardianship and terminating a guardianship; namely, in creating a guardianship the court must consider whether the guardian is “qualified … Parental fitness is not a consideration in establishing a guardianship. See Fletcher v. Scorza, 2010 Ark. 64, 359 S.W.3d 413.

Kruel v. John Doe

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 22, 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).

United States v. Shauver

214 F. 154 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 25, 1914

Massachusetts, a statute of Massachusetts regulating the fishing of menhaden in Buzzard’s Bay was involved, and it was there held: “We think it must be regarded as established that, as between nations, the minimum limit of … Even after the game has been reduced to possession there is but a qualified ownership in it, subject to the control of the state. Phelps v. Racey, 60 N. Y. 10 , 19 Am. Rep. 140 ; Commonwealth v.

Pratt v. Juno

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 14, 2023

immunity. … 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

Despain v. Bradburn

372 Ark. 272 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 10, 2008

Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 , 112 S.Ct. 2608 , 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) ], common-law liability is "premised on the existence of a legal duty," and a tort judgment therefore establishes that the defendant has violated … Clearly the MDA preempts states from setting up regulatory systems that compete with the regulatory systems set up by the federal government under the MDA. The state's common law on tort is no such regulatory system.

Britt v. State

573 S.W.3d 567 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 6, 2019

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. Id. … We review a trial court's decision to qualify a witness as an expert in a particular field under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 16, 2007

Given that you are a city employee, I believe documents containing the requested information clearly qualify as "public records" under this definition. As one of my predecessors noted in Op. Att'y Gen. … State, 340 Ark. 665 , 13 S.W.3d 167 (2000), 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."

Maloy v. Stuttgart Memorial Hospital

42 Ark. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 12, 1993

I think that statement clearly ignores the evidence and the law established by precedent. There is no reason to doubt that Mrs. Glover furnished the money to buy the certificates. … One view, the court said, holds that a joint account is immune from garnishment. Another view is that the entire account is subject to garnishment to pay the debt of either of the joint account owners.

Turner v. Dr. Robert Karas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 30, 2017

Qualified Immunity Next, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. Analyzing a claim of qualified immunity requires a two-step inquiry. Jones v. … was clearly established at the time of the violation.”