Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,882 results
3.29s
National Bank of Commerce v. Quirk
323 Ark. 769 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 18, 1996
More significantly, Act 292 simply added the clause “except to the extent that they be covered by liability insurance” as qualifying an employee’s immunity. … Bush, supra, this Court recognized in 1988 that employees have only a qualified immunity and that actions can be maintained against them to the extent they are protected by insurance. 7.
Cited 30 timesPublished356 Ark. 208 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 19, 2004
Moreover, there was no evi-' dence to establish that the challenged findings impacted the trial in any respect. … These general motions did not address the issue of appellant’s statutory immunity. Because appellant failed to make a motion for a directed verdict on the issue of appellant’s immunity pursuant to Ark.
Cited 15 timesPublished2022 Ark. 32 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 17, 2022
We explained that although Martin raised sovereign immunity, “[b]ecause [Haas] has asserted that Act 633 violates qualified voters’ constitutional right to vote and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages … Some of these citations don’t support the propositions for which they are cited; for example, one case involved the interpretation of “qualified electors” and never discussed sovereign immunity. Barrett v.
Cited 3 timesPublished327 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.
Cited 20 timesPublished2022 Ark. 32 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 17, 2022
We explained that although Martin raised sovereign immunity, “[b]ecause [Haas] has asserted that Act 633 violates qualified voters’ constitutional right to vote and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages … Some of these citations don’t support the propositions for which they are cited; for example, one case involved the interpretation of “qualified electors” and never discussed sovereign immunity. Barrett v.
Cited 1 timesPublished470 S.W.3d 281 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 16, 2015
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded that Davis was immune from suit. … Davis failed to establish that forgiving uncollectable debt is equivalent to providing free services.
Cited 6 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 12, 2004
MARIJUANA PROVIDER, AND WHEN SO ACQUIRING THE QUALIFYING PATIENT WILL HAVE THE IMMUNITY FROM ARREST, PROSECUTION OR OTHER PENALTY AS SPECIFIED IN THE ACT; A QUALIFYING PATIENT MAY HAVE NO MORE THAN ONE MARIJUANA PROVIDER … PATIENT FROM ACQUIRING MARIJUANA FROM SOMEONE OTHER THAN HIS OR HER REGISTERED MARIJUANA PROVIDER, AND WHEN SO ACQUIRING THE QUALIFYING PATIENT WILL HAVE THE IMMUNITY FROM ARREST, PROSECUTION, OR OTHER PENALTY AS SPECIFIED
Cited 0 timesPublished500 S.W.3d 148 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 13, 2016
facilities limited immunity; providing that qualifying patients, as well as dispensary and cultivation facility agents, shall not be subject to criminal or civil penalties or other forms of discrimination … licensed in the state that he or she is suffering from a qualifying medical condition; establishing an initial list of qualifying medical conditions; directing the Department of Health to establish rules related
Cited 8 timesPublishedRodgers v. Southland Racing Corp.
247 Ark. 1115 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 2, 1970
This appeal is from a decree holding the act to be invalid as a grant of special privileges and immunities that do not equally belong to all citizens upon the same terms. Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 18. … Those considerations apply with even greater force to an establishment, such as a race track, where gam- bling is permitted.
Cited 5 timesPublishedSwanigan v. Ark. Dep't of Correction
2014 Ark. 196 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 1, 2014
Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit. Hanks v. Sneed, 366 Ark. 371, 235 S.W.3d 883 (2006), overruled on other grounds by Hardin v. Bishop, 2013 Ark. 395, ___ S.W.3d ___. … an exception to either sovereign immunity or statutory immunity where the claim did not allege officials violated clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge).
Cited 8 timesPublishedRodney Dale Harmon v. State of Arkansas
678 S.W.3d 390 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 7, 2023
The United States Supreme Court held that the “media ride-along” indeed violated the Wilsons’ Fourth Amendment rights, but that the officers had qualified immunity because the illegality of such conduct was not clearly … established at the time of the search.
Cited 5 timesPublishedArkansas Department of Human Services v. Estate of Hogan
314 Ark. 19 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 12, 1993
At a hearing where DHS, the trustee bank, and the guardian were present, DHS argued the Probate Court lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the trust was a “medicaid qualifying trust,” i.e., one which was not immune from … The jurisdiction of probate courts is established by Ark.
Cited 13 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 21, 2021
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … As no individual officers were found liable and they are entitled to qualified immunity, Washington County cannot be held liable. Ivey v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFireman's Insurance v. Arkansas State Claims Commission
301 Ark. 451 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 1990
Section 1 of Act 276 of 1955 abolished the “State Claims Commission” established by Act 462 of 1949 and established a new commission, the “Arkansas State Claims Commission,” which was declared in Section 3 to “have all the … The act creating the Claims Commission clearly creates it as an arm of the legislature, reporting solely to that body.
Cited 43 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 19, 1987
Nor would the peer review committee in question qualify as a "professional services review organization appointed pursuant to state or federal statute." … Bracy, 744 F.2d 1338 (8th Cir. 1984) does reflect one instance in which 71-5101 was raised as a basis for qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesPublished244 Ark. 1239 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 3, 1968
Clearly the operation of a garbage truck is governmental by this test. Kirksey v. City of Fort Smith, 227 Ark. 630 , 300 S. W. 2d 257 (1957). … Having determined as we have here that a rule established by precedent no longer gives a just result it must then be determined whether the rights of those who have justifiably relied upon the established precedents are of
Cited 96 timesPublishedKapable Kids Learning Center, Inc. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
420 F. Supp. 2d 956 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 15, 2005
It is well established that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment’s procedural protection of property is a safeguard of the security interests that a person has already acquired in specific benefits.” Board of Regents v. … We find it entirely appropriate for the Plaintiffs to base their procedural due process claim on their clearly established right to have equal access to quality medical care as defined by § 1396a(a)(30)(A).
Cited 1 timesPublished2026 Ark. 76 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 2026
Conclusion Mercer has alleged facts that, if proven, could establish an unauthorized governmental exaction. At the pleading stage, that is sufficient to avoid dismissal on sovereign-immunity grounds. … Haas, 2018 Ark. 283, at 8, 556 S.W.3d 509, 515 (“Because appellee has asserted that Act 633 violates qualified voters’ constitutional right to vote and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages, this action
Cited 1 timesPublishedAnglin v. Johnson Regional Medical Center
375 Ark. 10 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 2008
He also stated that JRMC’s charter limits it to charitable purposes and establishes it as a not-for-profit entity. Mr. … Of the eight factors listed in George, three are clearly established based upon evidence in the record.
Cited 25 timesPublishedCross v. Arkansas Livestock & Poultry Commission
328 Ark. 255 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 28, 1997
In its order, the trial court found that because Appellant could not establish the existence of a contract for his employment with the Commission, it necessarily followed that he could not establish the required element that … Clearly, the first element of the tort may be proved by demonstrating either a valid contractual relationship or a business expectancy.
Cited 29 timesPublished
Ask Donna