Case law

Grubbs v. United Mine Workers of America

723 F. Supp. 123 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 21, 1989

The 1974 Benefit Plan refused to pay the benefits to the pensioners because Royal had a solvent parent company and therefore did not qualify as being no longer in business. … According to the court, the 1974 Benefit plan and Trust was established and continued in order to supply the health benefit needs of “orphaned” retirees.

Brown

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 5, 2026

The Saline County Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Brown’s claims against them in their individual capacities because he cannot establish that they were deliberately … immunity, the Court must consider two questions: (1) do the facts alleged by plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) if so, was that right clearly established at the time of the

Schenebeck v. Schenebeck

329 Ark. 198 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 1997

In connection with the federal estate tax return and in order to qualify Dorothy’s life interest in the testamentary trust as a Qualified Terminable Interest Trust, Gerald disclaimed all interest in the property and income … trust was created but not funded, and the probate court was simply collecting the assets of the estate and distributing them to the proper entity when it ordered the prorated rental payment to be paid into a special account established

Smith v. Walker

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 19, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Judge Bryant then concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to establish a claim for violation of his constitutional rights requires that Defendant Golden be granted qualified immunity.

Davis v. Pulaski County Arkansas

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 8, 2021

Constitution, it would still grant summary judgment to Deputy Dillard based on the second prong of the qualified immunity test. … It was not clearly established at the time of Mr.

Moore v. Anders

14 Ark. 628 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 1854

But for the reason that he is not affected by the independent judgment against Blackmore, he can claim no immunity from it. … That the vendor, who gives a bond for title, may bring ejectment on failure of the vendee to comply with the condition of the bond by the payment of the purchase money, is fully established by Brown vs.

Cariker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2011 Ark. App. 574 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 28, 2011

Deal told Laura to apply for housing, and Laura would respond that David told her she would not qualify. … These facts establish the potential for unhealthy circumstances in returning B.C. to his mother.

Sims v. Little Rock Plastic Surgery PA

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 5, 2020

The motion to dismiss the defamation claim based on the defense of qualified immunity is denied. Defendants also move for dismissal of the defamation claim for failure to allege each of the requisite elements. … This argument is based on the defense that Defendant’s had qualified immunity for the statements that they made.

Hill v. Billups

85 Ark. App. 166 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 18, 2004

Lewis’s July 1999 deposition as a means of establishing Dr. Lewis’s qualifications in emergency medicine. … Lewis was not qualified as an expert because she did not articulate a standard of care. This is clearly an evidentiary objection.

Edward Lee Carter v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction

2025 Ark. 168 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 30, 2025

The circuit court’s factual findings in support of its exercise of discretion will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Id., 598 S.W.3d at 36. … The burden is on the petitioner to establish with factual support that he is entitled to issuance of the writ. Id., 618 S.W.3d at 131.

King v. Vorhease

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 29, 2025

Because Plaintiff has not established a cognizable § 1983 claim against his former public defender, and Judge Gibson and Sandra Bradshaw are immune from suit, this claim should also be dismissed. … Such decisions, including what and how to prosecute, are questions of strategy that are clearly covered by prosecutorial immunity.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 14, 2008

Given that the records are kept by the City, were written by city employees, and the subject matter involves the performance of official functions, I believe the documents in question clearly qualify as "public records" under … The FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

City of Fort Smith v. Wade

578 S.W.3d 276 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 20, 2019

Fort Smith has established a Civil Service Commission (CSC). … However, today's majority opinion ultimately fails to advance the clearly stated purpose of the FOIA.

Shrader v. State

13 Ark. App. 17 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 7, 1984

In none is the zone of privacy more clearly defined than when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual’s home — a zone that finds its foots in clear and specific constitutional terms: “The right of … the fact that experience has shown that the evidence of an accomplice should be viewed with care, caution and suspicion because it comes from a tainted source and is often given in the hope or expectation of leniency or immunity

King v. Cochran

419 F. Supp. 54 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 26, 1976

The complaint alleges that the compulsory retirement age established for teachers by the laws of the State of Arkansas is age 72. … This burden has clearly not been met. The Court finds that the Board’s policy was adopted with the intent, as stated, of reducing the average age of the teachers.

Advanced Communications Corp. v. MCI Communications Corp.

101 F. Supp. 2d 1154 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 19, 2000

It also states that there is no First Amendment immunity for illegal or fraudulent actions such as bribing governmental decision-makers. … DISCUSSION A motion for judgment on the pleadings is not properly granted unless the moving party has clearly established that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter

Hickman v. Trust of Heath, House & Boyles

310 Ark. 333 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 20, 1992

However, not all writings qualify and the case before us presents such a situation. … Clearly, the signed writing in this case, the minutes, does not expressly incorporate the unsigned paper by direct statement.

Blackwood v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

576 S.W.3d 95 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 1, 2019

Muller acknowledged that the trial court had ordered an adoptive home study after the last hearing, but Muller stated that she was not qualified to conduct an adoptive home study. … s life and that B.H. was adoptable were clearly erroneous. Appellant's remaining arguments are without merit.

Middleton v. Lockhart

344 Ark. 572 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2001

Pursuant to Art. 9, § 3, of the Arkansas Constitution, as a married man, Kenneth qualified to acquire a homestead in that property. Adams v. Planter’s Prod. Credit Assoc., 262 Ark. 734 , 561 S.W.2d 80 (1978). … As the trial court found, if the evidence shows abandonment, the issue of whether the right was established is resolved as well.

Garrett v. Faubus

323 S.W.2d 877 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 27, 1959

Our Act No. 4 is clearly for the purpose of preventing violence and bloodshed. … Public officers and employees— No immunity for violation of laws enacted under amendment—Forfeiture of office for violations.