Case law

Sexton v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

275 Ark. 361 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 29, 1982

We routinely hold that one claiming an exception from taxation because of a statutory grant has the burden of clearly establishing the exception beyond a reasonable doubt, and the statute will be strictly construed against … Such testimony would necessarily have to come from one qualified as an expert.

Williams v. Arkansas Department of Correction

362 Ark. 134 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 28, 2005

defendants did not violate Williams’s constitutional rights; and, (7) the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities. … Before addressing whether the defendants were entitled to statutory immunity in their official capacities, or, qualified immunity in their individual capacities, this court must find that Williams pled facts sufficient to

Wilmoth v. Murphy

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 20, 2018

Qualified Immunity Having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation as to all Defendants except Deputy Murphy, the remaining Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Additionally, Deputy Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity as to the August 11, 2016, incident.

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.

Parsons v. Northwest Arkansas Community College

846 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 14, 1993

The term community college is defined as an educational institution established or to be established by one (1) or more counties or cities of the state offering a comprehensive program designed to serve the post-secondary … Clearly a termination in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights can form the basis of both a federal claim and a state wrongful discharge claim.

Carnell v. Arkansas Elder Outreach of Little Rock, Inc.

2012 Ark. App. 698 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 12, 2012

In this case, the third, fourth, and fifth factors are clearly the most relevant. … As we explained in Watkins, what is reasonable is usually a question of fact, and it was AEO’s burden to establish its entitlement to charitable-immunity status.

Arkansas Department of Education; Jacob Oliva, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Education; Dr. Sarah Moore, in Her Official Capacity as Chairwoman of the Arkansas State Board of Education; Kathy McFetridge-rollins, in Her Official Capacity as Vice-Chair of the Arkansas State Board of Education; Lisa Hunter, Jeff Wood, Randy Henderson, Adrienne Woods, Ken Bragg, and Leigh S. Keener, in Their Respective Official Capacities as Members of the Arkansas State Board of Education; The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration; And Jim Hudson, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration v. Gwen Faulkenberry; Special

2025 Ark. 203 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2025

or the immunity of a government official[.]” … But as we have explained for more than 80 years, the county, city, and town language qualifies who may file an illegal-exaction claim; it does not limit what public entity (or private entity taking misspent public monies

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 25, 2011

Title AN ACT MAKING THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA LEGAL AND ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM FOR THE CULTIVATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA FOR PATIENTS THROUGH NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES; PROVIDING THAT QUALIFYING … The definition is clearly meaningless in part and necessarily ambiguous. 3.

Elliott v. Hurst

307 Ark. 134 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 4, 1991

At trial, the trial court denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment, claiming immunity from tort liability under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-6-105 (1987). … services or benefits of a volunteer by reason of any act or omission of a qualified volunteer in connection with the volunteer except as follows: * * * (2) Where the qualified volunteer acts in bad faith or is guilty of

State v. Central Surety & Insurance

102 F. Supp. 444 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 31, 1952

If done in the course of effecting an arrest, under circumstances clearly showing that no such force was necessary, or if done to force a confession, or if done to administer punishment for a supposed violation of the law … Little was not a duly authorized and qualified deputy sheriff or other state officer, although he apparently held himself out to be such.

Littleton v. Blanton

281 Ark. 395 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 13, 1984

On the other hand, our Court has held unconstitutional as special or local legislation a number of acts which clearly relate to the administration of justice. In Cannon v. … Of all areas of legislation, the administration of justice above all should be immune to the evils of discriminatory laws and pork-barreling which Amendment 14 was designed to end.

Camden Progressive Eldercare Services, Inc. v. Sheila Whitney, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lillie Whitney

646 S.W.3d 374 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 18, 2022

In his affidavit, Harrington stated: Most Ouachita Nursing residents qualify for Medicare or Medicaid coverage, but Ouachita Nursing still provided free care to residents who did not qualify for Medicare … If the existence of charitable immunity turns on disputed factual issues, then the jury may determine the facts and the circuit court will subsequently determine whether those facts are sufficient to establish

Walther v. FLIS Enters., Inc.

540 S.W.3d 264 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 1, 2018

The parties agree that Burger King qualifies for the "sale-for-resale" exemption, that the manager meals were a withdrawal from stock, and that Burger King was required to report and remit taxes on the withdrawal. … The language of section (D)(1) clearly accounts for the goods given away in the condition they were purchased.

Coffelt v. Bryant

238 Ark. 363 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 14, 1964

solely from the relationship of the citizen and his state established by state law. … S. 277, 283 , is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities clause.”

Adams v. Thompson

313 F. Supp. 265 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 22, 1970

It is clearly established that Negroes as a class and wage-earners as a class have not been fairly represented on the grand and petit juries selected for Phillips County during the period of time, 1960-68, relevant to this … Further, Judge Henley gave an analysis of the law with reference to comity between federal and state jurisprudence in considering the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens under the Constitution of the United States

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 23, 2001

The complete immunity from suit referenced in the last sentence of this passage was somewhat qualified by Act 292 of 1993, which amended A.C.A. § 21-9-301 to read as follows: It is declared to be the public policy of the … The foregoing establishes only that a city must make reasonable efforts to ensure the safety of its residents.

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences v. Adams

354 Ark. 21 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 11, 2003

The Arkansas General Assembly established UAMS as “a part of the University of Arkansas . . . .” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-64-401 (Repl. 1996). … Clearly, UAMS is merely a department of the University of Arkansas and, as such, is not an entity that can sue or be sued. See Asaad-Faltas v. UAMS, 708 F.Supp. 1026 (E.D.

Duit Construction Co v. Arkansas State Claims Commission

476 S.W.3d 791 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 10, 2015

established that the ASCC statutes provide parties with due process. … of impartiality to which both are clearly entitled.

Entertainer, Inc. v. Duffy

407 S.W.3d 514 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 10, 2012

erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … Based upon the foregoing evidence, we cannot say that the circuit court’s award of $1,560,000 in punitive damages was clearly erroneous. Affirmed.

Cherry v. Tanda, Inc.

327 Ark. 600 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 17, 1997

This argument is clearly against the policy of the direct- action statute, and established caselaw. In Rogers v. Tudor Ins. … In this case, the Transcontinental insurance contract was “carried by” Tanda, not the immune City. Thus, Cherry fails to establish the first element of the statute.