Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 31, 2008

who were legally qualified to vote in the contest instead voted in other constable contest(s). … For reasons described in some detail in response to your second question, the office of constable is clearly a township office.

Wilson v. Jenkins

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 6, 2022

against him in his individual capacity are barred by qualified immunity; (3) Wilson failed to state a claim for injunctive relief because no action alleged amounts to a constitutional violation; and (4) Wilson’s Complaint … Claims against the State of Arkansas are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Campbell v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 19, 2002

Section 16-17-602 of the Code (Repl. 1999) authorizes the establishment of small claims divisions of municipal courts, which, upon the adoption in 2000 of Ark. amend. 80, § 7 have been redesignated "district courts." … An individual not licensed as an attorney is clearly precluded from pursuing such an action on behalf of another. Assistant Attorney General Jack Druff prepared the foregoing, which I hereby approve.

Roberson v. Roberson

561 S.W.3d 737 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 19, 2018

We conclude that this language leaves no doubt that Joe Sr. and Cleo intended to maximize the amount of their assets that would qualify for the estate-tax exemption, and it imposes a fiduciary obligation on their survivor … Conclusion The four corners of the Trust demonstrate that Joe Sr. and Cleo Roberson intended for their survivor to establish and fund an irrevocable CST when one of them died.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 12, 2005

A subcontractor who was owed money argued that this exception did not apply to a secondary vacation home because, not qualifying as a domicile, it could not be a "residence" under the statute. … The context of A.C.A. § 14-20-108 is clearly volunteer fire departments, and the aim of the statute is clearly to assist in dues collection efforts.

Spradlin v. Arkansas Ethics Commission

314 Ark. 108 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 19, 1993

Rogers, supra , which is clearly distinguishable. In Martin v. … not clearly erroneous; and, accordingly, appellants' challenge to Mr.

Hardy

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 15, 2026

To establish personal liability of the supervisory defendants, [Plaintiff] must allege specific facts of personal involvement in, or direct responsibility for, a deprivation of his constitutional rights.” … Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable constitutional violation related to his mail against either Defendant.1 The mail at issue does not qualify as legal mail requiring constitutional protections. In Wolff v.

Terry v. Sanders

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 11, 2023

Terry could state a claim, Defendants are immune from suit, and this Court can’t order them to give Mr. Terry his money back. … Terry.24 And Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacity because it was not clearly established that they could not use Mr.

Nelson v. Texarkana Historical Society and Museum

257 Ark. 394 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 16, 1974

That language is: Even if we should adopt and strictly apply the California rule announced in Manchester as urged by the appellants, the instrument signed by Rutherford would qualify as a holographic will subject to probate … All other evidence clearly indicates that when Mr.

Isom v. State

356 Ark. 156 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 19, 2004

At times, the judge clearly did not believe that additional questions would be productive or beneficial. … This argument was not made to the circuit judge and as a result does not qualify for this court’s review.

Jerry Lard v. State of Arkansas

595 S.W.3d 355 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 12, 2020

After Lard requested waiver of his postconviction remedies, the circuit court ordered him to undergo competency testing by a disinterested psychiatrist or qualified psychologist. Dr. … Further, he established that his trial counsel had not 10 made the pretrial filing required by section 5-4-618.

Holt v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 26, 2025

; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … Holt’s RLUIPA claim, it is unnecessary to separately address Defendant Shipman’s assertion of qualified immunity.

Oliver Ex Rel. Estate of Oliver v. United States Army

758 F. Supp. 484 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 13, 1991

Section 501 claims clearly must be exhausted before filing suit. 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(l). Whether the same is true for a § 504 claim, which Morgan asserts, however, is not as clear.... … An independent establishment means an establishment in the executive department, military department, or part thereof. 5 U.S.C. § 104 . The AAFES is a part of the Department of Defense, (footnote omitted).

The Money Place, LLC v. Barnes

349 Ark. 518 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 27, 2002

P. 23 to establish the necessity for handling this matter as a class action. A hearing was held on June 22, 2001, at which counsel presented arguments to the court. … Rule 23(a). 2 The first of these challenges addresses the issue of adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4), and this court has previously interpreted Rule 23(a)(4) to require three elements: (1) the representative counsel must be qualified

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 15, 2009

*Page 3 Given that the subject of the request is a former city employee, the records are presumed to qualify as "public records" under this definition. As I stated in Op. … records should be properly withheld from public disclosure or redacted under the FOIA, I must necessarily be somewhat circumspect in my description of them in a published opinion from this office. 2 Section 25-19-103 (5)(A) establishes

Moore v. Sipes

85 Ark. App. 15 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 4, 2004

We agree with appellant that the trial court’s decision to appoint appellees as guardians in this case was clearly erroneous. … A preference for the natural parent must prevail in third-party guardianship cases unless it is established that the natural parent is unfit. See Robbins v. State, 80 Ark. App. 204 , 92 S.W.3d 707 (2002).

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 11, 2008

Given that you are an employee of the Arkansas Game Fish Commission, I believe that the records requested clearly qualify as "public records" under this definition. As my predecessor noted in Op. … The FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

ADAM G. WEEKS v. JOHN THURSTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ARKANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE; jUDY MILLER; CARA BRYANT, KEITH DECLERK, AND CAROLYN TOWELL, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS COMISSIONERS OF THE RANDOLPH COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; MICHAEL BRADLEY, JUDY VERKLER, AND TOMMY HOLLAND, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAWRENCE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; LOU ANN CUSHMAN, HOLLY MCLARAN, AND HOMER WILES, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS COMMISSIONERS OF THE SHARP COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION; And DAVID DICKSON, ALICE JAMES, AND DONNA GOULD, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS COMMISSIONERS OF THE JACKSON COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION

2020 Ark. 64 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 13, 2020

The Fronterhouse court rejected the State’s position that the proponent of a conviction must demonstrate the underlying facts giving rise to the conviction in order to establish that it involves dishonesty or false statement … Such misconduct on Judge Thompson’s part clearly violated Canons 1 and 2 A. Id. at 272, 16 S.W.3d at 221–22.

Ligon v. Price

360 Ark. 98 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 16, 2004

Therefore, the judge’s findings are not clearly erroneous. … Therefore, Price did not establish a disability under the ADA.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 19, 2001

However, the Governmental Bonding Board further concluded that the AHDC was not a governmental entity qualified to participate in the Fidelity Bond Program. Id. … This conclusion is clearly appropriate, particularly in light of the fact that review at the trial court level is limited to the administrative record, which in the present case would not even include the school district's