Case law

Aaron Spencer v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. 91 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 29, 2025

For example, prohibiting the public expression of an opinion as to “the weight, value, or effect of any evidence as tending to establish the guilt or innocence of the [d]efendant” by any public official is clearly overbroad … Public officials aren’t immune from public criticism—judges and prosecutors included.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 31, 1989

Section 504 of this act states that: "No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or … The Commission's authority and discretion in the area of preservation and conservation of the state's wildlife resources is well-established.

Tracor/MBA v. Baptist Medical Center

29 Ark. App. 198 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 22, 1989

The test is well established. … Under all the circumstances, I think it was proper to reverse and remand this matter to the Commission to allow it to focus clearly on the factual issues it must decide.

Gilliam v. Staley

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 29, 2021

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 [in their positions … Conclusion The Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Gilliam has not established that his constitutional rights were violated.

Hogg v. Jerry

299 Ark. 283 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 26, 1989

Woody, 295 Ark. 168 , 747 S.W.2d 108 (1988), this court was faced with deciding if a person qualified as an agent under Ark. … Hogg and Haines deny the existence of a partnership and the evidence in the record fails to establish that a partnership existed.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 30, 1995

As probate courts clearly have jurisdiction to determine such disputes between personal representatives and, for examples, heirs, it appears that subject matter jurisdiction, in this instance at least, may depend upon the … Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), discussing the common law immunity of prosecutors, and held that a prosecuting attorney's immunity from civil suits for damages "is absolute and is established by precedents of this court and

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 17, 2009

Given that the subject of the request is a former state employee, the records are presumed to qualify as "public records" under this definition. As I stated in Op. … As always, the person claiming the right will have the burden of establishing it.

Mullinax v. State

53 Ark. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 1, 1996

reviewing a trial court’s decision to deny an appellant’s motion to suppress, this Court makes an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances and will reverse the trial court’s ruling only if it is clearly … In Camp, we noted the importance of qualified drivers and safe vehicles using the highways and that we were not aware of a less intrusive means of making that determination.

Schenck v. Peay

21 F. Cas. 672 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Apr 15, 1869

Snow never fully qualified. His bond was never approved. … Now, does not this language clearly imply that the taxes may be paid any time “previous to sale”?

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stotts

74 Ark. App. 428 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jul 5, 2001

Objective medical evidence is necessary to establish the existence and extent of an injury but not essential to establish the causal relationship between the injury and work-related accident. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. … Thrash’s report contained no qualifying words, such as, maybe, or possibly, regarding appellee’s injury. Dr. Thrash simply found that appellee had suffered the injuries. We hold that Dr.

Ozark Mountain Reg'l Pub. Water Auth. v. Arkansas Attorney General

598 S.W.3d 864 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 18, 2020

Ozark argued that Act 197 does not apply to it because it does not qualify under Act 197’s definition of “water system.” … Ozark asserts that Act 197 does not apply to it because it does not qualify as a water system as defined in Act 197.

League of Women Voters of Arkansas v. Thurston

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 15, 2021

Sovereign Immunity Defendants do not enjoy sovereign immunity that would deprive this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. … Relevant to this case, the people of Arkansas have legislatively established a process by which they allow qualified Arkansas voters to vote absentee, rather than in person.

Garner v. Green

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 17, 2022

If it does, then Officer Gamble is entitled to qualified immunity because she had arguable probable cause to arrest Garner. … If it does not, then the Court concludes that Garner’s constitutional right against malicious prosecution was not clearly established at the time of her arrest. Quraishi, 986 F.3d at 835.

Hatch v. Hatch

2009 Ark. App. 337 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 29, 2009

He stated that he initially drew workers’ compensation benefits; used vacation, sick, and catastrophic leave for a year and a half; and after qualifying “for early retirement, namely disability retirement, from Game and Fish … A colloquy between the court and the parties' attorneys established that APERS administered the plan for Game and Fish employees. 2 . Appellee testified that these benefits were retroactive to April 2003.

Bailey v. Martin

Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 2014

Bailey thus argued that a writ of mandamus was not warranted, as there was no clearly established, undisputed legal right to demonstrate that mandamus should issue. … Similarly, we have held that a party may not utilize the process established in section 7-5-207(b) in a post-election challenge. See Zolliecoffer v.

Utley v. City of Dover

352 Ark. 212 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 13, 2003

Such testimony clearly constitutes a basis for the trial court’s decision on this point. … Von Tungeln on this criteria clearly supports the trial court’s decision; therefore, we cannot say that the trial court’s finding on this point was clearly erroneous. VI.

Roberts v. Berry

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 22, 2022

Defendants argue that these claims are futile because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Brown v. State

330 Ark. 627 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 20, 1997

We emphasized that the ruling in Penn did not open the door to other petitions beyond those which qualified under the facts of that case and which were brought within that narrow window of time in which the judicial system … These traditional grounds for a writ are not subject to the time limitation established in Penn for a third-party confession.

Miller-Claborn Distribution, Co. v. Richard (In Re Richard)

165 B.R. 642 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 28, 1994

Even had the plaintiff established that it was unable to timely unearth the facts asserted.in support of its position, those facts do not compel the conclusion that fraud, required by the statute, existed. … Although the debtor’s schedules clearly contain material omissions, the Court cannot find the requisite fraudulent intent qualifying them as false oaths which would result in a denial of discharge. 2 Accordingly, to the extent

Brittany Pelayo v. Wesley Sims

600 S.W.3d 114 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 22, 2020

He believes Brittany takes T.W.S. to the doctor for “minor stuff,” and he thinks antibiotics harm the immune system—so there have been disagreements about the use of prescribed medications for T.W.S.. … In reviewing child-custody cases, we consider the evidence de novo but will not reverse a circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the 10