Case law

Files v. Davis

118 F. 465 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · Nov 12, 1902

was determined upon the ground that the right claimed was under an authority exercised under the United States, the second proposition in that case, “Did the claim of immunity from liability for attorney’s fees, as one of … This proceeding may therefore be properly treated as ancillary to- the original attachment suit, and is clearly within the rule established in this circuit by Mr. Justice Brewer while circuit judge, in Patterson v.

Fancher v. Nimmo

549 F. Supp. 1324 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 2, 1982

Fancher from that department and to place her temporarily in some other job which she was qualified to perform for the duration of her pregnancy. … Clearly such hostility was insufficient grounds for permanently removing the plaintiff from the department.

Skokos v. Skokos

332 Ark. 520 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 4, 1998

Lawson, 226 Ark. 643 , 291 S.W.2d 518 (1956), will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous, Calvin v. … The provisions of Trusts Nos. 3 and 4 were apparently the same as those established in connection with the 1992 trust. Ms.

St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. White

199 Ark. 56 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 1939

Other authorities to which attention is called in appellees’ brief are printed in the footnote. 2 Appellees rely entirely upon the well-established rule that where land is conveyed upon the express condition that it shall … an absolute conveyance, but expressed a condition subsequent, upon the happening of which the title reverted to and vested in the grantor. ” The opinion, however, as distinguished somewhat from the headnote, says: “The qualified

Ray & Sons Masonry Contractors, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

353 Ark. 201 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 2003

In East Poinsett, supra, this court stated that section 16-56-112 “clearly establishes a maximum five years period within which an injured party can bring suit against a person who deficiently constructs or repairs an improvement … In Okla Homer, supra, this court stated that Act 42 of 1967, establishing Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-112 , was intended to “establish limitations for ‘any’ deficiency in work arising out of a construction contract.”

Williams v. State

369 Ark. 104 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 1, 2007

Washington’s statement that she “maybe” would consider life without parole is not good enough for her to qualify as a fair juror in a death case. … Here, the State asserts there was clearly adequate justification. We agree.

Carrier v. Robison

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 28, 2023

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (Court must liberally construe the facts unless they are clearly baseless—those that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional). … Nurse Robison Carrier has clearly stated a plausible individual capacity claim against Nurse Robison.

Harris

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 24, 2026

In his Motion, Defendant argues: (1) Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation fails as a matter of law; (2) Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity; and (3) there is no basis for Plaintiff’s official capacity claim because … The Court need not reach the issue of qualified immunity because, as explained below, both of Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law. A.

White v. Spells

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 3, 2024

They argue the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars Plaintiff’s official capacity claims and qualified immunity bars his individual capacity claims. (ECF No. 65 at 5-6). … Finally, he argues they lost the right to any claim of sovereign immunity or qualified immunity when they conspired with other ADC employees to protect their employer by obstructing Plaintiff’s right to pursue legal claims

Justin Roe & Rjx Enterprises, LLC v. Theodore Somach

699 S.W.3d 749 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 30, 2024

The answer was clearly signed “Respectfully Submitted Pro Se, Justin Roe, Defendant.” … RJX does not, however, establish that any of the grounds for setting aside the default judgment set forth in Rule 55(c) exist.

Graves v. Board of Education

302 F. Supp. 136 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 25, 1969

The situation just described clearly does not amount to any complete desegregation of staff and faculty, but it does mark very substantial progress, and in view of the short time between now and September, the Court will … to teach, and to replace another teacher if better qualified.

Hetman v. Schwade

317 S.W.3d 559 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 21, 2009

This court reviews probate proceedings de novo on the record, but it will not reverse the decision of the circuit court unless it is clearly erroneous. Seymour v. … Code Ann. § 28-65-107 (a) (Repl.2004), she notes that the probate court clearly has subject-matter over guardianship proceedings.

M & M Bonding Co. v. State

59 Ark. App. 228 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 3, 1997

Fourth, appellant asserts that the trial court’s finding that appellant was properly served with notice of the bond-forfeiture hearing was clearly erroneous. … A surety bond is posted by qualified individuals to insure the appearance of a criminal defendant at subsequent hearings. The surety bond itself is considered adequate security.

Lindsey v. Cryts (In Re Cox Cotton Co.)

24 B.R. 930 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 17, 1982

Judge Baker adjourned the hearing until it could be determined if Wayne Cryts might be granted use immunity in exchange for his testimony. That immunity was granted by this Court on April 1,1982. … This statement clearly shows that Congress cannot freely confer the contempt power.

Smith v. Forrest City Arkansas, City of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 25, 2021

Third, the Court will deal with qualified immunity issue by issue -3- because that immunity rises or falls with the merits. Burton v. … Smith, 345 F.3d 581, 585 (8th Cir. 2003), and, even if they made a mistaken judgment, Lee and Williams are entitled to qualified immunity on the individual-capacity § 1983 claims.

MARK MYERS AND JANE DOE v. AMY FECHER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF TRANSFORMATION AND SHARED SERVICES, ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE, INC.

2021 Ark. 230 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 16, 2021

Further, “we review findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard of review. Ligon v. Stewart, 369 Ark. 380, 255 S.W.3d 435 (2007). … In establishing this procedure, we explained that “even with the statutory presumption, it is still necessary to examine the facts concerning e-mails on a case-by-case basis.”

Buchanan

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

Cooper, III (“Attorney Cooper”), filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the ADC Defendants in that case are entitled to sovereign, qualified, and statutory immunity. Buchanan I, (Docs. 95, 96). … And it is well-established that a transfer to another detention facility may constitute an adverse action for retaliation purposes. See Sisneros v. Nix, 95 F.3d 749, 751–52 (8th Cir. 1996) (collecting cases).

Foreman v. State

321 Ark. 167 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 1995

Appellant argues Brooks was not an unavailable witness and her statement did not qualify for admission under Rule 804(b)(3) or Rule 804(b)(5). … A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offering to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

Klingensmith v. Cruz

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 20, 2020

The Court therefore directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that clearly and concisely set forth his claims against each named Defendant. … immunity may be raised as a defense.

Franz Ex Rel. Simmons v. State

296 Ark. 181 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 11, 1988

The cases establish that such actions may be appropriate in cases of infancy, lack of time, and incompetency. United States v. Preiser, 506 F.2d 1115 , 1126 n.8 (2d Cir. 1974). … That finding is not clearly erroneous.