Case law

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.

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.

Estate of Allegra Warnick, Deceased v. Benton County, Arkansas; Shawn Holloway, Benton County Sheriff; Officer Riley McCarver, Rogers Police Department; Officer Kaden Dickson, Rogers Police Department; and the City of Rogers, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 23, 2026

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields officials from liability “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which … Analysis of a qualified immunity claim is a two-step inquiry: (1) do the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) was that right clearly established at the time of

Robert Herrington v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. App. 316 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 21, 2025

Herrington again objected and argued that the State was “climbing into fact qualifying territory[.]” … “Unless the trial court’s discretion is clearly abused, it will not be reversed.” Id.

Riddling v. State

19 Ark. App. 231 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 12, 1986

immunity from prosecution. … We cannot say the trial court’s decision on that point was “clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.” See Hammers v.

735 IN US CURRENCY v. State

90 Ark. App. 358 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 23, 2005

In discussing whether the trial court’s ruling was clearly erroneous, our supreme court stated, We cannot say the trial court clearly erred in this finding. … The State cannot be liable for attorney’s fees under the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, unless immunity is waived. See Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 359 Ark. 49 , 194 S.W.3d 193 (2004).

Hamilton v. Earl

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 21, 2021

(2) Qualified Immunity To prevail at this stage of the proceedings, defendants must show that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the complaint. … ,” and second, “whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged infraction.”

Roper v. City of Pine Bluff

673 F. Supp. 329 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 16, 1987

. § 19-1603(9), in that the promotion was not based upon an open competitive examination of efficiency, character and conduct, but upon an oral examination administered by the Civil Service Commission that failed to establish … immunity.

Pierce v. Edington

38 Ark. 150 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1881

McDowell had been duly elected trustee for the ensuing year,, and had qualified and acted. … -school trustee for district No. 6, qualified and entered upon his duties as such.

Preston v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

354 Ark. 666 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 2003

This point clearly turns on whether the Prestons’ Oklahoma attorneys were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Arkansas. … Affirmed. 1 The doctors requested that the Prestons admit: (1) that they do not have any qualified medical support for the allegations of negligence against the doctors in the complaint; (2) that they do not have any qualified

Humphrey v. Garrett

218 Ark. 418 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 19, 1951

The proof showed that the one educational institution capable of qualifying under the Act was the College of the Ozarks at Clarksville, where a department of pharmacy was established in 1946 at the request of the State Board … But' this determination can not be arbitrary to such an extent that things or purposes clearly “outside of the line of necessary expenses of government” may receive monetary benefactions.

Cammack v. Chalmers

284 Ark. 161 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 3, 1984

The chancellor's findings will not be reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. Hughes v. Gibbs, 282 Ark. 488 , 669 S.W.2d 451 (1984). We do not find that the chancellor's holding was clearly erroneous. … It was within his discretion to establish the 1997 deadline to best effectuate the charitable purpose of Mrs. Cammack's gift.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 23, 2006

hence qualifying the contract as a "county interlocal agreement." … If my reading of this statute is correct, your proposed agreement may well not be subject to my approval despite the fact that it clearly calls for a "permanent or perpetual" relationship as that term is statutorily defined

United States v. Balliet

133 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 8, 2001

Here Balliet has made no attempt to establish that the Newton County Court was a court of competent jurisdiction. … Clearly, Rule 14 impleader is an improper mechanism given the facts of this case. The Joneses are in no way secondarily liable to Balliet for the claims of the United States. Conclusion.

McCoy v. Blevins

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 10, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) if so, was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Benton v. Gunter

342 Ark. 543 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 6, 2000

Specifically, appellees complained that he was not qualified to run because he was not a qualified elector of the City of Pine Bluff. … On the other hand, section 16-17-108(dddd)(2)(A) is a specific statute addressing the unique election requirements established by the legislature for the second-division Pine Bluff municipal-judge position.

UPI v. Hernreich

241 Ark. 33 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 19, 1966

’s failure to qualify to do business in this state, entitled him to a summary judgment. … At any rate, we think clearly that these facts were disputed, and a summary judgment should not have been granted.

Clem v. Counts

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 15, 2024

immunity. … Because the officers didn’t violate Clem’s clearly established constitutional rights, they’re entitled to qualified immunity. New, 787 F.3d at 899.

Whitson v. Hollis

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 13, 2023

Defendants also maintain they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants knowledge in this regard is critical to the Court’s analysis of the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Milton v. State

144 Ark. 1 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 10, 1920

While said body of water has no continuous connection with the river situated but a few yards away, such connection is established during all periods of high water, and continues for a sufficient length of time to allow fish … Francis basin is a permanent enterprise, and is intended to afford im'munity from the overflow of waters from the Mississippi River, and that it does afford such immunity, except at rare intervals when the levee breaks, as