Case law

Titus v. Phaypanya

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 5, 2023

An equal protection claim may be established in two ways.  … Clearly, this does type of discrimination, assuming it occurred, does not impact a protected class.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 27, 2005

Nothing is taken as intended that is not clearly expressed. State ex rel. Sargent v. Lewis, 335 Ark. 188 , 979 S.W.2d 894 (1998). … (b) The alternative learning environment required by this section may be established by more than one (1) school district or may be operated by a public school educational cooperative established under § 6-13-901 et seq.

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.

Thomas v. Sharon

2013 Ark. App. 305 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 8, 2013

for medical injury, when the asserted negligence does not lie within the jury’s comprehension as a matter of common knowledge, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving by means of expert testimony provided only by a qualified … The law requires more than a mere possibility that certain injuries resulted from negligence; rather, a reasonable probability must be established. Id.

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).

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.

Christina Morris v. Chad Morris

2026 Ark. App. 52 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 28, 2026

Childers’s conclusions and was not qualified to interpret Dr. Childers’s tests. … Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous (clearly against the preponderance of the evidence), and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 23, 2001

(establishing and defining the operations of the School for the Deaf and the School for the Blind); Ark. Op. Att'y Gen. … The legislation clearly provides for the consolidation, on the one hand, of the Arkansas School for the Deaf and the Arkansas Institution for Advocacy for the Deaf and, on the other, of the Arkansas School for the Blind and

Huskey v. Hart

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 19, 2023

Because there was no constitutional violation, they next argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557, 564 (8th Cir. 2009) (unless the facts make out a violation of a constitutional right the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity).

Nard v. King

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 15, 2018

Prisoners do not have a clearly established right to receive free medical care. Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 1997). … immunity.

Roe v. Cargill, Inc.

333 F. Supp. 2d 808 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 20, 2004

The evidence supported the conclusion that the buyer for Plaintiffs’ farm, Willis O’Connell, was a qualified buyer. b. … An award manifests a disregard for the law where an arbitrator clearly identifies the governing law and then ignores it. See Hoffman, 236 F.3d at 461 .

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 18, 2008

. § 19-11-902 (b)(5) (Supp. 2007) (defining an "ordering office" as being "any state department, independent establishment, board, commission bureau, service, or division of state government and any wholly owned state corporation … Const. amend. 55 , § 3 setting forth the powers of the county judge, clearly empowers the county judge to contract on behalf of the county, subject initially to the constitutional restriction discussed above.

United Building & Loan Ass'n v. Garrett

64 F. Supp. 460 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 12, 1946

Garrett, all formal requirements for creating a valid trust are clearly met. … That this provision does not make the instrument testamentary in character or evidence an intention of the settlor to effect a testamentary disposition of his property, is clearly established in Arkansas and a majority of

Lawson v. State

74 Ark. App. 257 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 20, 2001

We reverse only if the denial is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id. … The reviewing court will not reverse the denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 8, 2006

Your constituent also states that "TCPN offers commodity contracts to participating agencies that have been established through open competition as prescribed by the laws of the State of Texas." … A competitive process such as that utilized by TCPN would clearly contravene Arkansas law in this respect.

Porter v. Hesselbein

235 Ark. 379 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 17, 1962

The appeal was dismissed as moot because the record clearly showed that the term of office over which the controversy arose had expired. … If the question presented for our consideration merely involved an application of this established rule, our task would be simple indeed. Unfortunately this is not the case.

Worley v. State

259 Ark. 433 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 8, 1976

The hearsay ruling by the trial court was clearly erroneous. As pointed out in Frampton v. Hartzell, 179 Cal. App. 2d 771 , 4 Cal. … In light of present business practices, the common law requirement is clearly unreasonable.

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.

Ashley Atkins Edmonds v. Christopher Miller

655 S.W.3d 908 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 7, 2022

Christopher was ordered to pay child support, specific visitation was established, and the request for a name change was denied. … erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

Byrd v. State

317 Ark. 609 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 18, 1994

Article 2, § 7 of the Arkansas Constitution establishes the inviolate right to trial by jury in this State. … That “jury” under Article 2, § 7, means twelve persons is further evidenced by Amendment 16 to § 7 adopted in 1928, which clearly contemplated a jury of twelve people.