Case law

Miller v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 1, 2023

. *** Wright maintains that her use of force was not excessive, and that even if it was, qualified immunity … Moreover, even if there was a violation, Wright is entitled to qualified immunity—Plaintiff did not provide clearly established law according to which Wright should have known her actions were unlawful, and the Court

Collins v. Robinson

568 F. Supp. 1464 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 3, 1983

These facts, which are undisputed, clearly made out a prima facie case for McNeely. He was a member of a minority who was qualified for promotion. … A white found less qualified by the promotion board was promoted in his stead. Clearly McNeely has met the test for a prima facie case as established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v.

Nelson v. Timberline International, Inc.

332 Ark. 165 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 5, 1998

In order to clarify the provisions of the Arkansas workers’ compensation law and to provide improved benefits for persons qualifying under the Act, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 290 of 1981, which significantly … We recently explained the legislative intent in the establishment of the Second Injury Trust Fund law as follows: It is clearly expressed in section 11-9-525 that the purpose of the Fund is to fully compensate an employee

Christian Populist Party v. Secretary of State

650 F. Supp. 1205 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 12, 1987

He has clearly slept on his rights. It has been held that one must expeditiously pursue claims against a state’s election laws, Kay v. … Forbes is a legally qualified write-in candidate under Arkansas law.

Riggs v. Hot Springs

181 Ark. 377 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 17, 1930

Dillon is clearly pointed out. The court there said: “It is noticeable that he supports the first proposition of his text by the citation of Cooley, Const. … But this immunity from impeachment for fraudulent motives, or abuse of power, does not attach to all the acts of a city council which may assume the form of an ordinance.’

Murry v. State

209 Ark. 1062 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 29, 1946

In other words, under our statute, if there be no proof of the specific intent to take life except the extra-judicial confession of such intent, then the offense of assault with intent to kill is not established, and if this … L. ( 37 A. 959 ): ‘As observed by the learned judge in the Martin case, this rule should be applied with caution, that no undue or dangerous immunity or license be given to crime by persons whose passions are inflamed by

Vick v. Cecil

368 Ark. 369 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 4, 2007

, 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (f) (2000), which states: No termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified … court determined that “[Dennis and Lois] are morally fit to have the custody of the child and are physically and financially able to furnish suitable support, nurture, and education for the child and furthermore desire to establish

Block v. Glen

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 2, 2019

Alternatively, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s medical care claim. … Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to these claims. (ECF No. 25). II.

Brown

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 22, 2026

Snyder also asserts qualified immunity. … Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (no clearly established right to be free from non-toxic mold), and Wishon v.

Winters v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services

437 F. Supp. 2d 851 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 2, 2006

The answer, we hold, is a qualified yes. … The testimony in this case clearly established that Mr. Winters died of an undiagnosed perforated duodenal ulcer. As such, any action, or inaction, by separate defendant was not the proximate cause of death.

Stutte v. State

432 S.W.3d 661 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2014

The circumstances and the offenses involved here clearly distinguish this case from Butler. … App. 139 public roadway as a safety hazard) do not qualify as “exigent circumstances” for purposes of doing away with the requirement of a warrant before entry. Norris, supra.

Tully v. Wal-Mart

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 16, 2024

However, in a few limited circumstances, a private entity can qualify as a state actor. … To establish diversity jurisdiction, two requirements must be met: (1) the parties must be citizens of different states; and (2) the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 exclusive of costs and interest. 28 U.S.C.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 24, 2005

qualify as "public records" under this definition. … The FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 17, 1996

. § 7-9-107 , of the following popular name and ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment: (Popular Name) AN AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY AND CASINO COMMISSION; TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY, CHARITABLE … There is no clearly discernible test for determining what constitutes a "serious omission" that would render a ballot title insufficient. Page v.

Ligon v. Newman

365 Ark. 510 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 9, 2006

While the evidence in this matter clearly indicates that Mr. … In addition, there was a pattern established whereby Mr. Newman wrongfully retained monies that did not belong to him.

Bennett v. McGough

281 Ark. 414 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 1984

I agree we should uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous. In this case the chancellor and the majority of this court are clearly erroneous, in my opinion. … He earns take home pay of $1,600 per month and these children would become covered under his insurance and would qualify for other benefits. The grandparents did visit.

Milam v. Bank of Cabot

327 Ark. 256 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 10, 1997

Milam and James Milam to establish that neither suffered any damages as a result of the Wood report. … The slander claim is clearly time-barred.

Powell v. Wehco Video Inc

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 13, 2020

First, there is a determination of whether the plaintiff qualifies by economic status under 27 U.S.C. § 1915(a). If she does, the complaint is permitted to be filed. Id. … A claim is frivolous if it “describ[es] fantastic or delusional scenarios,” the factual contentions are “clearly baseless,” or there is no rational basis in the law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327- 28 (1989).

Padilla v. Archer

2011 Ark. App. 746 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 7, 2011

Bentley had not been qualified as an expert. We hold that the circuit court did not err in ruling that Dr. … Flye also established that he was familiar with the standard of care in similar medical communities. He testified that he grew up in a town of similar size and that he receives patients from similar medical communities.

Hervey v. Southern Wooden Box, Inc.

253 Ark. 290 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 23, 1972

These customers include independently owned grocery stores, drug stores, branches of large chain stores, restaurants and other establishments engaged in the sale of food or beverage for consumption. … Company for a valuable consideration does not qualify as a “sale for resale”.