Case law

Byron Sartor v. Mayor Tony Cole, Individually and in His Capacity as Mayor of the City of Huttig And the City of Huttig

2023 Ark. App. 131 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 8, 2023

On August 16, Cole and the City filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, for an express ruling on the issue of qualified immunity. … An order denying the motion for reconsideration of the denial of motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, for an express ruling on the issue of qualified immunity was entered on October 7.

Byron Sartor v. Mayor Tony Cole, Individually and in His Capacity as Mayor of the City of Huttig And the City of Huttig

2023 Ark. App. 131 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 8, 2023

On August 16, Cole and the City filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, for an express ruling on the issue of qualified immunity. … An order denying the motion for reconsideration of the denial of motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, for an express ruling on the issue of qualified immunity was entered on October 7.

UNIVERSITY OF ARK. FOR MED. SCIEN. v. Adams

117 S.W.3d 588 · 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 Assaad-Faltas v. UAMS, 708 F.Supp. 1026 (E.D.Ark.1989), aff'd 902 F.2d 1572 (8th Cir.1990).

Watkins v. Oaklawn Jockey Club

86 F. Supp. 1006 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 4, 1949

the controversy a duly appointed, qualified and acting Deputy Sheriff of Garland County, Arkansas. … Some of the more basic and fundamental rights have been absorbed by the privileges and immunities clause, Hague et al. v. C. I.

Stephanie Potter Barrett v. John Thurston, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State

593 S.W.3d 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 23, 2020

4 pursuant to amendment 80, section 16(D) is not clearly erroneous. … Read together, Amendment 80 requires that a judicial candidate be a qualified elector; Article 3, section 1 requires that the qualified elector be a lawfully registered voter; and the General Assembly has established that

Arkansas State Medical Board v. Leipzig

299 Ark. 71 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 30, 1989

Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988), also negates the argument that the injunction violates the separation of powers and immunity provisions in the Arkansas Constitution. … Refusal to permit evidentiary depositions would clearly be a due process violation. Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n., 109 Cal. App. 2d 54 , 240 P.2d 57 (1952).

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.

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

United States Tobacco Co. v. Martin

304 Ark. 119 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 17, 1990

tax immunity for activities commonly associated with maintaining a business operation. … There is a presumption in favor of the taxing power of the State and the claimant has the burden of establishing the right to an exemption beyond a reasonable doubt. Heath v.

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

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 30, 2008

THE TIME THE ALIEN APPLIES FOR, RECEIVES, OR ATTEMPTS TO RECEIVE A STATE OR LOCAL PUBLIC BENEFIT OR A FEDERAL PUBLIC BENEFIT ADMINISTERED BY A STATE AGENCY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, MEETS ONE (1) OR MORE OF THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED … under penalty of perjury that he or she is a: (A) United States citizen or (B) Qualified alien."

Peterson v. Jefferson Cnty. Cir. Ct.

2014 Ark. 228 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 2014

The two-part test for judicial immunity established by Stump, 435 U.S. 349, requires that we determine whether the judges named by appellant in his petition for declaratory judgment had subject-matter jurisdiction to act … Clearly, the judges had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the pleadings filed by appellant and to render a decision in their judicial capacities. Accordingly, the judges were entitled to judicial immunity.

Fleming v. Vest

475 S.W.3d 576 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 4, 2015

Our standard of review for summary judgment cases is well established. … On the contrary, this analysis in Thompson actually supports appellee’s contention that -the death of Scott Fleming qualified as a “medical injury” and therefore, fell under the | Kauspices of medical malpractice.

Weiss v. McFadden

356 Ark. 123 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 19, 2004

In bench trials, the standard of review on appeal is whether the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Carwell Elevator Co., Inc. v. … The express terms of § 26-51-404(b)(24)(A) clearly state that nonemployment-related retirement plans are covered under IRS Code § 72, while the express terms of § 26-51-404(b)(24)(B) clearly state that employment-related

National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. Bennett

178 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 8, 1959

. * * * ****** “* * * jf NAACP wants tax immunity, it should comply with the ordinance. It cannot have immunity from taxation without complying with the ordinance. … That definition is clearly broad enough to include the plaintiff and its local branches or chapters in Arkansas. . Bates v. City of Little Rock (Williams v.

Scherrer v. State

294 Ark. 227 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 19, 1988

Ivey’s and Harrison’s testimony essentially established that Scherrer raped her, cut her throat, and then put her body in a nearby canal. … Other evidence introduced at trial establishes that Ivey simply witnessed the crime and then failed to inform the police.

Presley v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.

2010 Ark. App. 367 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 28, 2010

As his second point, appellant contends that the trial court erred in determining that he did not plead sufficient facts to establish the immunity of the hospital. … Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in finding that he did not plead sufficient facts in his original complaint to establish the hospital’s immunity.

McDonald v. Pettus

337 Ark. 265 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 15, 1999

Pettus, and even if they did, the facts taken as true did not “rise to the level of establishing malpractice on the part of the Defendant.” … This section is clearly inapplicable because the children did not assert fraud or intentional misrepresentations in their original or amended complaints.

In re Admin. Order No. 15.1

2016 Ark. 131 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 17, 2016

An attorney ad litem, functioning as an arm of the court, is afforded immunity against ordinary negligence for actions taken in furtherance of his or her appointment. l. … An attorney ad litem, functioning as an arm of the court, is afforded immunity against ordinary negligence for actions taken in furtherance of his or her appointment. l.

Archer v. SISTERS OF MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM

294 S.W.3d 414 · 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.