Case law

State v. Herndon

365 Ark. 185 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 2, 2006

We concluded, Clearly, [Rule 36.10] refers to an appeal by the State following either a misdemeanor or felony prosecution. Just as clearly, neither is involved in the case before us. … Bickerstaff, supra, to the extent it stands for the proposition that violations of AGFC regulations do not qualify as misdemeanors. They clearly do based on AGFC Regulation 01.000H.

Perdrix-Wang v. Director, Employment Security Department

42 Ark. App. 218 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 30, 1993

Good cause has been defined as a cause that would reasonably impel the average able-bodied, qualified worker to give up his or her employment. Teel v. Daniels, 270 Ark. 766 , 606 S.W.2d 151 (Ark. App. 1980). … There was no evidence to indicate that appellant’s child suffered from allergies or immunity problems or that she was in any way less than perfectly healthy.

Brown

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 21, 2026

or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … “Clearly Established” Right This conclusion, however, does not end the Court’s qualified immunity analysis.

In Re Guardianship of Matthew Helton

594 S.W.3d 903 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 19, 2020

Matthew first argues that certain statutory requirements for establishing incapacity were not satisfied, and this requires reversal. … At best, that affidavit established Matthew’s medical and physical condition, adaptive behavior, and intellectual functioning.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 12, 2007

In addition, following Arkansas Supreme Court precedent, this office will not address the constitutionality of proposed measures in the context of a ballot title review unless the measure is "clearly contrary to law." … Crunkleton , 303 Ark. 21 , 791 S.W.2d 794 (1990) ("Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional immunity from suit.")

Jackson v. Mundaca Financial Services, Inc.

349 Ark. 84 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 30, 2002

Code Ann. § 4-3-305 provides immunity for a holder in due course from the constitutional prohibition of usury. … It has been well established that Rule 8 requires that affirmative defenses including estoppel defenses, such as the holder-in-due-course doctrine, be argued in the pleadings. Wright v.

Addington v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

81 Ark. App. 441 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 23, 2003

The federal court granted summary judgment to the officer on the basis that his arrest of Guidry was reasonable and thus he was entitled to qualified immunity. … We reversed on the basis that the type of analysis used by a court to determine the question of qualified immunity would be different from that used to determine tort liability.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 9, 2001

In a case such as this, where the statutory language is ambiguous, the established rule is that qualifying words or phrases relate only to the last antecedent where no contrary intention appears. McCoy v. … The answer to your second question is, in my opinion, clearly "yes," pursuant to the plain language of the statute.

Sanford v. Robinson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 14, 2025

Qualified Immunity Robinson argues he is entitled to qualified immunity regarding Sanford’s claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution and contends Sanford’s false … In evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, courts ask two questions: (1) whether the facts shown by the Plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established

Mayfield v. Gilliam

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 2, 2025

; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … Defendant Gilliam is clearly entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. b.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 12, 1992

In a challenge, which might be based upon the equal protection, privileges and immunities, or due process clauses, the applicable standard would be the rational basis test. … The rationale of these cases requires that an applicant pass because it is not deemed "rational," under the "rational basis test," to hire an unqualified applicant over one who is qualified.

Gentry

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 20, 2026

Qualified immunity “shields [a] government [official] from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … It is Defendant Seiger’s burden to establish the predict facts warranting qualified immunity, and when genuine dispute of material facts exist on the record summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is inappropriate

Dunahue v. Reed

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 26, 2025

Qualified immunity may protect a government official from liability when his or her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To determine if Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must conduct a two-pronged inquiry into whether Dunahue has demonstrated: “(1) a deprivation of a constitutional right, [that was] (2) . . . clearly

Riley

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 10, 2026

Qualified immunity “shields [a] government official[] from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have … the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity regardless.

Cribbs v. Benedict

64 Ark. 555 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 1897

The act is clearly within the sphere of legitimate legislation (6 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, ’2), and it is immaterial as to what particular emanation of the sovereign power it be referred.' … Had it used any of these qualifying words, instead of “general,” the argument of learned counsel for appellees on this point would have been irrefutable.

Cummings v. Fingers

296 Ark. 276 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 18, 1988

The Bennett case is clearly dissimilar to the one before us. … Code Ann. § 16-113-301 (1987)] which had been enacted prior to the establishment of chancery courts in 1903 — as was the situation in this court’s earlier decision of Morgan Utilities, Inc.

Horton v. Holloway

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 25, 2021

Qualified Immunity Parole Officer Foreman alternatively argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … ) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Ledbetter v. Oller

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 7, 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 … light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

Gerald Robinson, in His Official Capacity as County Judge of Jefferson County, Arkansas v. Lafayette Woods, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Jefferson County, Arkansas

2026 Ark. App. 225 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 8, 2026

Therefore, the declaratory judgment claim is barred by sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Ark. Lottery Comm’n v. … To avoid the application of sovereign immunity, Petitioner urged that the County Judge’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, which is an exception to the defense of sovereign immunity. 29.

Railway Co. v. Ferguson

18 L.R.A. 110 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 3, 1892

The law upon this subject, and the reason for it, are clearly and succinctly stated by Chief Justice Gibson in Knight v. Abert, 6 Penn. … The case comes clearly within the general rule, as we have stated it.