Case law

Arkansas Department of Correction v. Jennings

526 S.W.3d 924 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 13, 2017

As discussed above, Torrey established a four-prong test for awarding such benefits. … Such work clearly existed within the scope of Jennings’s employment.

Fitzhugh v. Reid

252 F. 234 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 26, 1918

That the defendant was a public officer of the United States, and as such was immune from service of civil process at the time he was served with the summons in this cause, at Hot Springs, in the state of Arkansas. … Clearly not.

McGill

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 14, 2025

Plaintiff clearly disagrees with Judge Delay’s decisions, and he may even believe that those decisions were wrongly decided, or that Judge Delay acted with malice or in a manner unbecoming of a judicial officer in issuing … It is well established that “absolute immunity has been extended to acts that are discretionary, taken at the direction of a judge, or taken according to court rules.” Hamilton v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 4, 2008

(ii)(a) If the person received enough votes to qualify for a runoff, the person's name shall appear on the runoff ballot. … (ii)(a) If the person received enough votes to qualify for a runoff, the person's name shall appear on the runoff ballot.

Dickson v. Renfro

263 Ark. 718 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 11, 1978

In both the Slinkard and Lewis cases, supra, relied upon by the majority, a party to the relationship promptly protested to violation of it, and clearly established a fiduciary, sensitive, trust relationship. … Having so established the relationship, then the violation thereof was clearly a redemption. The Lewis case, supra, was decided upon the theory of a constructive trust, as well as upon the after-acquired title statute.

Slater v. State

533 S.W.3d 84 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 4, 2017

We do not reverse the denial of postconviction relief unless the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Conley v. State, 2014 Ark. 172, 433 S.W.3d 234. … App. 499 qualified as one] regarding the chemical make-up and effects of the drugs[.]” He asserted that he was prejudiced and, as a result, denied a fair trial.

Eugene Issac Pitts v. State of Arkansas

591 S.W.3d 786 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 2020

A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. … He was qualified as an expert. It is well established that a jury places heightened weight on scientific evidence from an expert witness.

Corey McCullon v. State of Arkansas

679 S.W.3d 358 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 14, 2023

The record before us establishes the following facts. … State, 2010 Ark. 452, 370 S.W.3d 820] or Williams, and we have clearly rejected those arguments.

Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Murphy

209 Ark. 945 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 25, 1946

The burden now shifts to the defendant to establish by a preponderance of the testimony that the plaintiff has recovered from total disability subsequent to the former adjudication. … The court had already given the following instruction No. 1: “The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to make out his case by a preponderance of the evidence. ’ ’ Instruction No. 4 complained of was clearly warranted, we

Floyd v. Gilbreath

27 Ark. 675 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1872

Having, we think, clearly established the fact that a remedy exists at law, for the grievances complained of, in the appellee’s bill, we do not wish to be understood as holding that it is exclusive of the jurisdiction of … It is argued that in these times of telegraphs, railroads and steam, that to insure immunity from wrongs and hardships under the law, the use of the extraordinary writ of injunction should be freely used.

Rye v. Baumann

231 Ark. 278 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 23, 1959

In a situation such as this, an honest claimant upon being asked about his intent, unless previously warned, might not think to qualify his answer so as to claim what he considered his own, but would state that he claimed … “A reservation is always of something- taken back out of that which is clearly granted; while an exception is of some part of the estate not granted at all.” 4 Kent’s Commentaries, 468 Bodcaw Lbr. Co. v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 25, 2002

In support of its holding, the court in Blackwell recited the following pronouncement on the subject by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals: "The government has a substantial interest in establishing methods by which it can … Moreover, A.C.A. § 3-2-210 (a) further qualifies that expectation as follows: The right of any enforcement agent or law enforcement officer to enter, search, inspect records, and seize contraband in or on any licensed premises

Dyer v. Jacoway

42 Ark. 186 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1883

In this special connection, it has become the established doctrine that courts of equity should not interfere for the mera correction of errors which might be corrected on appeal, nor on account of irregularities in settlements … But there are charges of a much graver nature, which, if proven on hearing, would clearly indicate a fraudulent intent in the settlement, and which should be answered and denied, or explained.

Newton, Cir. Clk. v. American Security Company

201 Ark. 943 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 17, 1941

adjoins said property on the west; that each of said roads is forty feet in width and that twenty feet or one-half of each is located on petitioner’s property; that said Base Line road, with said width of forty feet, was established … Of course one’s property cannot be taken for public use without compensation, but the evidence in this case clearly shows that no one is attempting to take the property of appellee.

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.

Burcham v. City of Van Buren

330 Ark. 451 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 1997

However, for ranks in each department where there may not be openings during an annual period, the board may establish rules to create the eligibles fist on an as-needed basis. … This is clearly not what the General Assembly intended. II. Advertisement for Promotions Burcham next contends that the Commission violated Ark.

Wyatt v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

315 Ark. 547 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 24, 1994

Lynn Nowlin Bryant, a licensed practical nurse employed by Warner Brown Hospital, gave information to a relative that the appellant, Ronald Wyatt, a hospital patient either had Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or … Bryant’s statements, whatever they may have been, “occurred outside the course and scope of her employment, and plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case against Warner Brown Hospital on a respondeat superior theory.

Chrestman v. Kendall

247 Ark. 802 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1969

This contention clearly called for the giving of AMI 1501 in its entirety. Walls v. Boyett, 216 Ark. 541 , 226 S. W. 2d 552 ; Dunman v. Raney, 118 Ark. 337 , 176 S. W. 339 . … Even if these facts were not alone sufficient to establish a fact issue, they were when coupled with the testimony of various physicians. Dr.

Thompson v. Mankin

26 Ark. 586 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 15, 1871

violate the established fundamental principles of the government. … They were qualified under an ordinance of that Convention, and acting under that Constitution; their acts have not been recognized as valid, and by the Constitution of 1868 they were declared void; and, while we are sworn

Jones v. Flowers

373 Ark. 213 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 17, 2008

We have also affirmed for a different reason when the documentary evidence in the record clearly gave us a basis for doing so ( State of Washington v. … of immunity.