Case law

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.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 19, 2007

Given that the subjects of the request are county employees, I believe documents containing the requested information clearly qualify as "public records" under this definition. As one of my predecessors noted in Op. … 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."

Potts v. Hay

229 Ark. 830 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 22, 1958

the Policemen’s Union was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), some of whose aims and objectives are: (1) to refuse to cross or interfere with a picket line established … No rule of construction should ever be used to defeat the clearly expressed language of the document. The Railway Labor Act (U.S.C.A.

Parker Ex Rel. Parker v. Fry

323 F. Supp. 728 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 28, 1971

On September 23, 1970, he filed this suit seeking to enjoin deprivation under color of state law of plaintiff’s rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution of the United States. … He testified that he believed that Jesus had worn short hair and was clean shaven and, in effect, that this was a rule that God established. Mr.

Hart v. McChristian

71 Ark. App. 178 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 18, 2000

As a result, the standard for reviewing procedural irregularities in an arbitration hearing has not been established. … Appellants provide no authority supporting their argument that this federal statute provides immunity from an order of a court that presides over a case in which they are a party.

Nunnenman v. Estate of Grubbs

2010 Ark. App. 75 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 27, 2010

Accordingly, Nunnenman’s assertion that the note qualified as neither a will nor a gift inter vivos is not dispositive of this case. … This was clearly a mistake of fact on the part of the majority.

Rebecca Nichols v. James Swindoll and Chuck Gibson

2026 Ark. 42 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 5, 2026

Swindoll claimed that this testimony was an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that it was clearly hearsay. … App. 477, 469 S.W.3d 805, is 16 clearly distinguishable, as the moving party in that case presented evidence that the circuit court had called his counsel an obscene name

James v. Cheatdum

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 12, 2019

Defendants contend that Officer Cheatham is entitled to summary judgment on all claims against him or, in the alternative, to qualified immunity on Mr. … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Mr.

Walters v. Sherwood Municipal Court (In Re Walters)

219 B.R. 520 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 6, 1998

Moreover, there is no issue of sovereign immunity in this ease because Eleventh Amendment immunity does not extend to independent political subdivisions such as counties and cities. Lincoln County v. … The state courts, like all creditors, must comply with the federal law established in title 11. See U.S. Const. Art. 6, § 2. D.

Arrow International, Inc. v. Sparks

81 Ark. App. 42 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2003

Allen did not require him to be an expert in any field other than the one in which he was unquestionably qualified, the field of medicine. Dr. … Kuykendall to establish the admissibility of the MDRs, but our review of the record indicates that the doctor’s testimony was not the sole basis for the judge’s decision.

Zachary Holly v. State of Arkansas

2026 Ark. 61 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 16, 2026

Thus, the circuit court did not clearly err by denying this claim of ineffective assistance. II. … Walz was qualified to diagnosis FASD, Holly presented no evidence that Dr. Hanlon was not. In fact, the circuit court concluded that he was so qualified.

Ridgeway Pulpwood v. Baker

7 Ark. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 23, 1983

Baker argues that the credible evidence tends to establish that they were cutting sawlogs. Questions of credibility and the weight and sufficiency to be given evidence are matters for the Commission to determine. … Appellate courts should not set aside such a determination unless it is clearly wrong or constitutes a gross abuse of that discretion.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 7, 2005

This clearly is an emerging area of the law. … This conclusion follows, in my opinion, from the well-established principle that that the election commission generally performs a ministerial function in preparing and furnishing the ballots. See State v.

In Re Guardianship of Pitts

627 S.W.3d 426 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 19, 2021

. §§ 28-65-211(b)(1) and -212(b) and had failed to establish Patty’s incapacity by sworn testimony from a qualified medical professional. … This court reviews probate proceedings de novo, but we will not reverse a finding of fact by the circuit court unless it is clearly erroneous. In re Guardianship of Helton, 2020 Ark. App. 132, 594 S.W.3d 903.

Matthew Kusper v. Dr. Gregory Guisbiers

2024 Ark. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2024

Kusper clearly believes that it’s not true and that there are some ethical issues. … We have held that a circuit court does not abuse its discretion denying motions to strike when prejudice is not established, see Trujillo v. TK Martial Arts Acad., LLC, 2015 Ark.

Baptist Health Med. Sys. v. Rutledge

488 S.W.3d 507 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 17, 2016

There is clearly a present and ongoing injury to the Hospitals in that the Arkansas Peer Review Fairness Act (the “Act”) creates new standards with which the Hospitals must comply during the peer-review process. … Kinney, Hospital Peer Review of Physicians: Does Statutory Immunity Increase Risk of Unwarranted Professional Injury?, 13 Mich. St. U. J. Med. & L. 57, 79 (2009).

Grogg v. Colley Home Center, Inc.

283 Ark. 120 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1984

It is not disputed that Colley was never properly qualified through the Secretary of State’s office to do business in Oklahoma, however, Colley did have a mobile home dealer’s license from the State of Oklahoma for its Roland … We found no particular act would establish one state’s contacts as being more significant than the other.

Matthew Kusper v. Dr. Gregory Guisbiers

2024 Ark. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2024

Kusper clearly believes that it’s not true and that there are some ethical issues. … We have held that a circuit court does not abuse its discretion denying motions to strike when prejudice is not established, see Trujillo v. TK Martial Arts Acad., LLC, 2015 Ark.

Parks v. State

11 Ark. App. 238 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 23, 1984

No action was taken on that motion until after the jury had been qualified and sworn. … To the contrary the evidence clearly indicates that the appellant was ready, willing and able to make the sale and was merely afforded the opportunity.

May v. Tims

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 22, 2023

Speculative 5 Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … , was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.