Case law

Hamilton v. Covington

445 F. Supp. 195 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 17, 1978

In finding county commissioners entitled to a qualified immunity, Judge Robinson stated in Adler v. … Since the individual members of the quorum court are entitled to only a qualified immunity, their motions to dismiss must be denied.

Ikani v. Bennett

284 Ark. 409 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 21, 1985

If any substantial evidence exists tending to establish an issue of fact in favor of that party, it is error for the court to take the case from the jury. Dildine v. … The immunity does not protect a defendant from publication to persons other than those whose hearing is reasonably believed to be necessary and useful for the furtherance of that interest.

Parish v. Pitts

244 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

Tripcony v. Arkansas School for the Deaf

403 S.W.3d 559 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 3, 2012

Watson in their individual capacities based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … She contends that her termination was wrongful because it was in|9violation of the Reduction Policy and, thus, was in violation of a clearly adopted public policy.

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

2012 Ark. App. 301 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 2, 2012

In this case, the third, fourth, and fifth factors are clearly the most relevant. … Neither fact was established in the ease at bar.

Hendrickson v. State

285 Ark. 462 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 29, 1985

Yarbrough was granted immunity from prosecution in return for his testimony. Norma Foster was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to life. Her conviction has recently been reversed. Foster v. … Once the right is invoked, a valid waiver cannot be established by showing only that the accused responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, at 484 (1981) .

Born v. Hosto & Buchan, PLLC

372 S.W.3d 324 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 17, 2010

Fraud On appeal, the Born debtors contend that the circuit judge erred in dismissing their fraud claim because (1) fraud is clearly exempted from the immunity statute, and (2) they “alleged several misrepresentations of material … However, these statements were not clearly alleged in the complaint.

GARLAND COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; PROFESSIONAL PROBATION SERVICES, LLC; SOUTHWEST PROBATION SERVICES, INC.; DESIREE SKEYA; AND BRADY HARMON v. JOHN MERCER

2026 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

Archer v. Sisters of Mercy Health System, St. Louis, Inc.

375 Ark. 523 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2009

Am., 364 Ark. 427, 440 , 220 S.W.3d 670, 680 (2005) (certain charitable entities are immune from tort liability). … It is difficult under these facts to accept the proposition that the Liability Pool qualifies as a new party, brought into this matter and burdened with a new obligation imposed by virtue of Act 750.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 12, 2001

Controlling noise pollution, air pollution and traffic congestion clearly qualifies as a legitimate state objective, and the statute at issue is just as clearly rationally related to achieving that end. … This nondiscriminatory legislation does not implicate the privileges and immunities clause. Assistant Attorney General Jack Druff prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve.

Arkansas Tech University v. Link

341 Ark. 495 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 2000

doctrine established by this court in the case of Toan v. … Cheney is clearly distinguishable from the present case in three respects. First, as previously noted, this court did not directly address the issue of sovereign immunity in that case.

Eastling v. State

69 Ark. 189 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 30, 1901

No state shall make or enforce any lay which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor … qualified electors.

Gillioz v. Kincannon, Judge

213 Ark. 1010 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 25, 1948

Any nonresident person, firm, partnership, general or limited, or any corporation not qualified under the Constitution and Laws of this state as. to doing business herein, who shall do any business or perform any character … It is today established that the true basis for jurisdiction by constructive service on a nonresident under such circumstances is the fact of doing acts or causing them to* be done, in the state, the acts being of the type

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. State

312 Ark. 481 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 5, 1993

immunity did not apply. … It was clearly wrong for the Trial Court to assess a probation fee against DHS. Section 9-27-330 does not authorize the assessment of a probation fee against a custodian.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 20, 1998

I will note, however, that board members may be entitled to limited immunity in certain instances under the provisions of A.C.A. § 16-120-102 or A.C.A. § 19-10-305 . … Again, though, the question of whether these statutory grants of limited immunity will be applicable will depend upon the nature of the violation in question.

Conway v. Martin

499 S.W.3d 209 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 22, 2016

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 to the processing of applications for … about the medical cannabis program; setting certain limitations on the use of medical cannabis by qualifying patients; establishing an affirmative defense for the medical use of cannabis; establishing registration and operation

Udey v. District Director

534 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 22, 1982

The law clearly is that a federal officer is absolutely immune from action based upon common law torts occurring within the scope of the officer’s duty. Spalding v. … In Butz, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that even where the absolute immunity doctrine does not apply, federal officers still have a qualified immunity and are immune from suit except where they “discharge their

Rhodes v. City of Wichita

516 F. Supp. 501 · United States District Court for the District of Arkansas · Jun 8, 1981

I, § 6, cl. 1 — or of the qualified immunity accorded officials by Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). … immunity.

Camden - Progressive Eldercare Services, Inc., D/B/A Ouachita Nursing & Rehabilitation Center v. Glen Robinson, as Personal, Representative of the Estate of Birdie Thompson, and on Behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Birdie Thompson

2025 Ark. App. 562 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 19, 2025

Harrington explained: 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 or Medicaid … 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

Pledger v. Bosnick

306 Ark. 45 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 10, 1991

not clearly foreshadowed, then the decision need not be applied retroactively, otherwise it must. … A review of the extensive historical discussion in Davis will clearly show that the Doctrine of Intergovernmental Tax Immunity has been applied for decades.