Case law

Hollonbeck v. Torrey

171 F.R.D. 244 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 17, 1997

must be filed by August 9, 1996, and that “[mjotions to amend pleadings ... shall be filed within 90 days of the issues being joined unless good cause is shown for delay.” ' Finally, any objection to the dates or deadlines established … Being an “owner” can mean possessing a fee interest (clearly inapplicable), being a tenant, lessee, or occupant (also seemingly inapplicable), or being a “person in control of the premises.” ACA 18-11-302.

Tom G. Clowers v. Marilyn Edwards, Former Washington County Judge; Joseph Wood, Current Washington County Judge; George Butler, Former Washington County Attorney; Brian Lester, Current Washington County Attorney; Garrett Harlan, Current Washington County Law Clerk; Tim Helder, Current Washington County Sheriff; Colin Jorgensen, Association of Arkansas Counties; Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney General; Arkansas Board of Election Commissioners; And Arkansas Secretary of State's Office

2020 Ark. 367 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 5, 2020

He brusquely dismisses the defendants’ immunity arguments in his reply brief but offers no argument for reversal of that ruling. … The position of constable is established in Article 7 of the Arkansas Constitution, which states that “qualified electors of each township shall elect the Constable for a term of two years.” Ark. Const. art. 7, § 47.

Carter v. St. Vincent Infirmary

15 Ark. App. 169 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 12, 1985

Her testimony was further offered for the purpose of establishing that current medical evidence distinguishes the effects of different strains of the herpes virus. … Appellees assert that part of Nurse Bradshaw’s testimony concerning her making inquiries, by telephone and through a computer linkup regarding causation of permanent nerve damage, was clearly hearsay.

Weiss v. Chem-Fab Corp.

336 Ark. 21 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 7, 1999

The claimant has the burden of establishing the right to an exemption beyond a reasonable doubt and “to doubt is to deny [the exemption].” Aluminum Co. of America, supra; Pledgor v. … These chemicals clearly qualify as equipment according to DF&A’s own definition of that term.

Whaley v. State

11 Ark. App. 248 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 23, 1984

Under our well established rule we will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. … Clearly it is not required in all circumstances that a witness be qualified as an expert in order to state an opinion. Unif. R.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. T.B.

347 Ark. 593 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 14, 2002

Clearly, because a protective services case was open on T.B., DHS was obligated to provide the services ordered by the trial court. … Sovereign Immunity DHS contends that the trial court violated State sovereign immunity when it ordered DHS to pay the Brown Schools $48,000 or make the “responsible party” pay.

Johnson v. Boyd

676 F. Supp. 2d 800 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 15, 2009

I.Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants raise qualified immunity as a blanket defense, without making any attempt to tailor that argument to the specific facts surrounding each of Plaintiffs claims. See Saucier v. … Thus, Defendants have failed to establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity on any of Plaintiffs claims. III. Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 12, 2000

If they have, the enforcement of the mowing provision would clearly be authorized and all remedies just discussed would be available. … Given the established rule that public equipment may not be used for private purposes, Needham v.

Geddings v. Criner

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 14, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To overcome the defense at the summary judgment stage, Geddings must demonstrate: “(1) a deprivation of a constitutional right, [that was] (2) … clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” Robbins v.

Brown v. Arkansas State Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (HVACR) Licensing Board

336 Ark. 34 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 7, 1999

The Legislature preserved sovereign immunity within the Arkansas Civil Rights Act by stating: “Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to waive the sovereign immunity of the State of Arkansas.” Ark. … Finally, the appellant argues that the failure of the Chairman of the HVACR board to recuse from consideration of the case was so clearly a violation of the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act that even in the

Johnson v. State

5 Ark. App. 56 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 10, 1982

A trial court’s finding of fact will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous, clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Rule 52 (a), Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure; Winkle v. … The finding of the trial court that the term “book value” was not ambiguous is not clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

Turner, Estate of v. Vernon Morris Sheriff

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 28, 2021

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … City of Minneapolis, the Eighth Circuit held that in order for a constitutional right to be clearly established for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity, case law must be established at the time of the alleged violation

City of Jacksonville v. Nixon

442 S.W.3d 906 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 24, 2014

Standard of Review In reviewing the findings after a bench trial, we reverse only if the findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … Dana Nixon testified as the owner of the property and was qualified to render an opinion regarding its value.

McFarland v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

91 Ark. App. 323 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 15, 2005

A.M. had night terrors and qualified for therapy in various areas. However, after seven to ten months of therapy, A.M. had improved dramatically. Ms. … Pursuant to our standard of review, we reverse only if the trial court’s finding is clearly erroneous.

Ralston

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 17, 2026

Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s individual- capacity claim. … The qualified immunity inquiry consists of two questions: “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown . . . establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly

ARKANSAS WINS IN 2020, INC. v. JOHN THURSTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE

2020 Ark. 263 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 31, 2020

Petitioner challenges respondent’s decision declaring its initiative petition insufficient to qualify for the November 3, 2020 general election ballot. … Respondent is not subject to the payment of costs because of sovereign 2 immunity. See id.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 9, 1996

The court in Davis clearly viewed art. 19, §§ 3 and 4 as requiring residence within the school district. … The zones are thus clearly established "in the interest of particular individuals or classes." See definition of "political subdivision" supra.

Arnold v. McClinton

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 21, 2023

to qualified immunity.” … Defendant McClinton is nevertheless still entitled to qualified immunity, however, if the Court finds that, at the time of the shooting, the law was not clearly established. See Burbridge, 2 F.4th at 780.

Simpson v. Trooper Grant Evans

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 2, 2018

fact regarding whether the defendant violated clearly established law. … this clearly established right.”

Devine v. Martens

371 Ark. 60 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 27, 2007

Devine also presented evidence of Syris’s immunization records and testified that he did not have any medical issues that she was aware of. … Additionally, her argument that Texas would have had jurisdiction, pursuant to section 9-19-201(a)(l), is without merit as that section deals with establishing jurisdiction in Arkansas, not Texas.