Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 20, 1998

App. 295 , 637 A.2d 482 (1994) (special masters and trustees appointed to determine marital property and debts performed discretionary judicial functions and were therefore entitled to at least qualified judicial immunity … These actions clearly involve the exercise of discretion, and Rule 53 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure grants special masters extensive judicial powers.

Lacey v. Bekaert Steel Wire Corp.

619 F. Supp. 1234 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 2, 1985

The policy involved in this case was “carried” by Bekaert, not Van Buren, and Bekaert does not qualify as an “association of any kind or character, not subject to suit for tort.” … Lee Creek Road was established as a county road by order of the Crawford County Court in May, 1968.

Hoban v. Hall

229 Ark. 416 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 29, 1958

Those duties, however, are not clearly defined. … Tested by this standard, the ballot title now before us is clearly insufficient. The petition for an injunction is accordingly granted.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 12, 2006

In federal court, the county may be able to claim "qualified immunity." … Qualified immunity applies to the actions of individual officers and employees who undertook the performance of their governmental duties in good faith and whose actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional

Arkansas Lottery Commission v. Alpha Marketing

428 S.W.3d 415 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 30, 2013

This | 19court noted that the ADC had clearly asserted the defense of sovereign immunity in its answer and disagreed that “all other appropriate relief’ was specific: LandsnPulaski argues that the phrase “all other appropriate … The court qualified this holding by stating that it could be raised in an amended answer, "unless there is a motion to strike the pleading, and the court finds that prejudice results.”

Finch v. Carroll Cnty. Ark.

445 S.W.3d 535 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 22, 2014

Appellees answered the amended complaint and pled defenses of qualified immunity, punitive-damages immunity, sovereign immunity, justification, mootness, set-off, comparative fault, failure to mitigate, assumption of risk … Once a moving party establishes a prima facie entitlement to the summary judgment by affidavits, depositions, or other supporting documents, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 19, 1992

Records of payroll and wage rates maintained by the department would generally be subject to disclosure unless the entity seeking nondisclosure can establish that the information falls within the exception to the FOIA for … Thus, the Arkansas Constitution provides for sovereign immunity and A.C.A. § 19-10-305 provides for immunity of officers and employees of the state.

Martin v. Kohls

444 S.W.3d 844 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 15, 2014

Thus, we hold that, because of their status as registered voters in Arkansas, Appellees have established standing in the instant case. B. … Applying our well-established precedent to the present case, Act 595 cannot survive a constitutional facial challenge.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 18, 2007

Const. art. 5 , § 22 , or whether you also intend to dispense with the statutorily mandated limited and qualified immunity enjoyed by state employees. … I will further note that qualified immunity is a matter of preemptive federal law, meaning that a reviewing court might well conclude that such immunity cannot be withheld by state constitutional amendment.

Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. Eddings

378 S.W.3d 694 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 2011

The first issue in this case is whether AGFC is entitled to sovereign immunity from a suit to establish a county road across its land. … This constitutional provision by itself, however, does not grant the power of eminent domain to the county court to establish roads. The power of eminent domain must be clearly expressed. See City of Little Rock v.

3 Rivers Logistics, Inc. v. Brown-Wright Post No. 158 of the Am. Legion

548 S.W.3d 137 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 15, 2018

Applying the principles set forth above, we conclude that the language of the statute clearly expresses the General Assembly's intent to give a shooting range immunity from noise-based lawsuits if it is not in violation of … Clearly, the Indiana statute differed significantly from ours in that it provided immunity only "if such a law or ordinance was in existence at the time of the construction or initial operation of the shooting range."

Stoner v. Arkansas Department of Correction

983 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 18, 2013

Qualified Immunity A government official sued in his individual capacity may raise the defense of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects gov *1103 ernment officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 14, 1988

It should be noted, for instance, that provision is made under A.C.A. 14-284-208 (a) for the qualified voters of the district proposed thereunder to vote on the establishment of the district and the levy of assessed benefits … Authority to establish subordinate service districts is found in A.C.A. 14-14-708 — 711.

Pratt v. Mitcham

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 10, 2023

Having found no constitutional claim exists, Captain Mitcham is also entitled to qualified immunity on the individual capacity claim against him, 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), and the official capacity claim against him, Ivey v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 30, 2011

LIMITED IMMUNITY; ALLOWING LOCALITIES TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF NONPROFIT DISPENSARIES AND TO ENACT REASONABLE ZONING REGULATIONS GOVERNING THEIR OPERATIONS; *Page 2 PROVIDING THAT QUALIFYING PATIENTS THEIR DESIGNATED CAREGIVERS … QUALIFICATIONS FOR REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARDS; ESTABLISHING STANDARDS TO ENSURE THAT QUALIFYING PATIENT AND DESIGNATED CAREGIVER REGISTRATION INFORMATION IS TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL; DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Brazil v. Arkansas Board of Dental Examiners

593 F. Supp. 1354 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 6, 1984

To the extent that it or its members adhere to or advocate adherence to the statute and the regulations adopted thereunder, such activity would clearly be immune from liability under the Midcal rule: the restraint is “clearly … If the agency or municipality transgresses the bounds of its authority to establish trade restraints, Parker immunity will not attach. 6 . See also Town of Hallie v.

State v. Mallory

67 L.R.A. 773 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 3, 1904

Justice Watson, who delivered the opinion of the court, clearly distinguished, with express approval, the former decision of that court in the case of State v. … It is, in fact, a property right, and not a mere privilege or immunity of citizenship. See also Sterling v. Jackson, 69 Mich. 488 ; Hall v. Alford, 38 L. R. A. 205; Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369; Hickman v.

Byar v. Lee

336 F. Supp. 2d 896 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 9, 2004

Defendant next argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs claims. … The Court, therefore, concludes that defendant is not entitled to the protection of the defense of qualified immunity in this matter. 7.

Clowers v. Lassiter

363 Ark. 241 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 15, 2005

Moreover, a mandamus action enforces the performance of a legal right after it has been established; its purpose is not to establish a right. Id. … In other words, Clowers asserts, [S]ince only the relief requested by [Clowers] was that the [ACIC and the sheriff] perform its clearly required statutory duty ... the Trial Court clearly erred in ruling — as a matter of

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 9, 2001

As noted above, extending the executive veto to separable provisions of an appropriation bill has been viewed as necessary to prevent the legislature from immunizing such provisions from veto. … The approval requirement clearly qualifies or restricts the use of the funds appropriated under the bill.