Case law

Nielsen v. Berger-Nielsen

347 Ark. 996 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 14, 2002

Once the moving party has established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Id. … Code Ann. § 16-22-310 , an attorney-immunity statute.

Prince v. Ark. State Highway Comm'n

576 S.W.3d 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2019

Clearly, citizens are constitutionally permitted to sue the state for an illegal exaction. The question before us in this appeal is whether appellants' complaint states a *4 cause of action for an illegal exaction. … This is not sufficient to establish a claim for an illegal exaction. See Bowerman v. Takeda Pharm.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 18, 2006

MSHS operates in accordance with standards established by the Division and is subject to overall control by the Division. … In enacting A.C.A. § 4-35-105 , the legislature clearly contemplated the possible conversion of an entire private nonprofit corporation into a public rehabilitative services corporation.

Hardin v. Bishop

430 S.W.3d 49 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 2013

The parties clearly raised the agency issue in motions before the circuit court and attached exhibits in support. The parties also argued the issue to the court at the summary- judgment hearing. … This court reversed, holding that, as a matter of law, Taylor’s degree of control over Willis was not enough to qualify as an agent. Id.

Arkansas Public Defender Commission v. Greene County Circuit Court

343 Ark. 49 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 7, 2000

Clearly, the order that Stidham’s attorney’s fees be paid by the Commission is an act that will tap the State’s treasury. … Our cases establish that the right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further. . . .

Doen Ex Rel. Doe v. Barger

193 F. Supp. 2d 1112 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 25, 2002

Barger’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Extend Disclosure/Briefing Deadlines Barger has moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … The Court, however, is of the opinion that the resolution of the qualified immunity defense requires development of the *1119 facts in this case, and that plaintiff should be given the opportunity to conduct discovery in

Robert Taylor v. Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board and Arkansas Division of Correction

2025 Ark. 176 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 13, 2025

The court, however, should dismiss the appeal because sovereign immunity bars Taylor’s underlying claims against the State. 1 When sovereign immunity bars a lawsuit against the State, the circuit court does … The majority confuses how dismissals and the qualifiers, “with prejudice” and “without prejudice,” operate.

Haro

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 19, 2025

LEGAL STANDARD The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional … Brown remains entitled to qualified immunity because that violation was not clearly established as of December 16, 2024. Mr.

Casey Reed v. Ken Yang; Grant County Board of Election Commissioners; Saline County Board of Election Commissioners; Geral Harrison, in His Capacity as Grant County and Circuit Clerk; Doug Curtis, in His Capacity as Saline County Clerk; Joseph Wood, in His Capacity as Chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas; And Cole Jester, in His Capacity as Arkansas Secretary of State

2026 Ark. 32 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2026

We review declaratory-judgment actions with a clearly-erroneous standard. Haile v. Johnston, 2016 Ark. 52, 482 S.W.3d 323. … First, I would dismiss Yang’s claims against the Secretary of State because of sovereign immunity.

Dos Santos, S.A. v. Beebe

418 F. Supp. 2d 1064 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 6, 2006

The state action immunity doctrine arose out of the case of Parker v. … Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 , 107 S.Ct. 720 , 93 L.Ed.2d 667 (1987), the Court noted that it had, over time, established a two-part test for determining state action immunity under Parker : the challenged restraint must be “clearly

Haro

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 18, 2025

LEGAL STANDARD The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional … Brown remains entitled to qualified immunity because that violation was not clearly established as of December 16, 2024. Mr.

St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. State

120 Ark. 182 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 4, 1915

peace of Washington County in which it was charged that the appellant railroad company had failed and refused to comply with Order No. 3085 of the Railroad Commission of Arkansas, which said order required appellant to establish … Moreover,, the use of the qualifying words bona fide is significant.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 28, 2011

With respect to your fifth question, a district superintendent is cloaked with a qualified immunity from tort liability in the conduct of district affairs unless the conduct was "intentional" in the legal sense of that term … Individual board members are cloaked from tort liability by the qualified immunity discussed in my response to your previous question.

Patterson v. Temple

27 Ark. 202 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 15, 1871

by law shall ever be reduced by the establishment of any new county or counties to less than six hundred square miles ; nor shall any new county be hereafter established which shall contain less than six hundred square miles … presumption that every State statute, the objects and provisions of which, are among the acknowledged powers of legislation, is valid and constitutional, and that presumption is not to be overcome unless the contrary is clearly

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 10, 2003

Once federal immunity from taxation is established, Congress must express any waiver of that immunity as a "clear, express, affirmative desire." Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, supra. … In response to your question, then, I believe federal land banks are clearly exempt from personal property tax on "furniture, fixtures and equipment owned by them and located within the local office."

Miller County v. Opportunities, Inc.

334 Ark. 88 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 9, 1998

Applying the hospital cases by analogy, Meadowbrook Place does not qualify for the exemption. … Smith’s testimony, the Trial Court also considered three prior orders dealing with the immunity of Meadowbrook Place.

Cundiff v. Crider

303 Ark. 120 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 16, 1990

The majority opinion states that there may be a common law qualified immunity for performing the duty imposed by law in this case. … There is another statute which is clearly applicable but not mentioned in the majority opinion. It is Ark.

Marcellus v. Mays

2012 Ark. App. 304 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 2, 2012

Finally, she argues that Mays has an “established pattern of deceit” that is a “significant negative influence on the child.” We find this argument unconvincing. … Significantly, with regard to the case-at-bar, the probate code clearly states that “The parents of an unmarried minor, or either of them, if qualified and, in the opinion of the court, suitable, shall be preferred over all

In re Pitchford

265 Ark. 752 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 21, 1979

As to the Fourteenth Amendment, in the same case the Court commented: The right to practice in state courts is not a privilege or immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. … State Board of Law Examiners, 438 F. 2d 699 (1971), the Circuit Court of Appeals (in affirming the district court) stated: The principle is firmly established that the judicial branch of the government, acting through the

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 6, 2000

My inquiries have revealed that Kensett's "officially organized volunteer fire department" was established in 1964 by Ordinance No. 114 (the "Ordinance"). … , 609-10 , 940 S.W.2d 457 (1997): Under Arkansas law, there is a presumption that parties contract only for themselves, and a contract will not be construed as having been made for the benefit of third parties unless it clearly