Case law

Terwilliger v. St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center

304 Ark. 626 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 25, 1991

Revenue Service ERISA exemption; testimony of Jack Reynolds established the limitations placed on SVI by the Roman Catholic Church; and testimony of Don Nixon established SVI’s attempts to obtain an exemption. … The evidence here did not establish that.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 9, 2006

The FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." … In the present case, the paramount public interest would appear to be to establish that the most qualified applicant was actually hired.

Foster

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 14, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert qualified immunity, which 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 [in their positions] would have known.”

Simpson v. State

274 Ark. 188 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 2, 1981

This rule applies to testimony given under expectation or hope of immunity or leniency or under the coercive effect of his detention by authorities. Stone v. State, supra; Boyd v. State, supra. See also Campbell v. … The old issue of “death qualified” juries is raised, no doubt for posterity’s sake. We have repeatedly ruled that such a jury is not unconstitutional. Ruiz v. State, 273 Ark. 94 , 617 S.W. 2d 6 (1981); Miller v.

Jones v. Siloam Springs, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 4, 2025

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Having found no constitutional violation, the undersigned need not delve further into issue of qualified immunity. Where no constitutional violation exists, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Terry v. Randle

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 22, 2023

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 the extent yard call was not conducted as a result of Covid-19 precautions, Defendant Randle is entitled to qualified immunity: there is no clearly established law that would have put Defendant Randle on notice that

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 24, 2005

Similarly, your measure does not detail how candidates for commissioner will qualify for the ballot. … Questions will arise under your proposal as soon as 2009 as to how the candidates for the first commissioner opening will qualify for the ballot.

Oliver v. Simons

318 Ark. 402 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 28, 1994

We clearly determined that it was a municipal office. … By Act 42 of 1972, the General Assembly established procedures for qualifying as an independent candidate for municipal office.

Gipson v. Morley

217 Ark. 560 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 22, 1950

The Louisiana Court concluded: “It is to be clearly understood that we are not holding that the legislature cannot under any circumstances adopt legislation, pursuant to the state’s police power, relating to the establishing … It is established that such enactments do not. violate the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities, or other possibly relevant clauses in the Federal Constitution. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.

Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee

340 Ark. 481 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 2, 2000

In its brief, the State argued the sovereign-immunity defense and prayed that no more briefs be filed. Lake View responded four days later and countered the sovereign-immunity defense. … Clearly, if trial courts can be said to be empowered to postpone the effectiveness of their decisions, such authority could play havoc with appeals—as has been the situation in this case.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 13, 2001

It is well established under Arkansas law that a court will give considerable deference to a board's interpretation of a statutorily undefined term and generally will uphold that interpretation unless it is clearly wrong. … Finally, I believe the Board has considerable discretion to determine what category of training would qualify as "core hours" — subject, of course, to the condition that the Board's interpretation of this term cannot be clearly

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Spears

311 Ark. 96 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 16, 1992

The work schedule and not the profession will establish these individuals as household members. … Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Specifically, we do not believe the evidence established that Ms. Spears qualifies as an adult household member.

Scott Logan v. Sergeant Solice

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 12, 2023

Defendants Solice and Callas are entitled to qualified immunity unless Logan has (1) stated a claim for violation of his constitutional right to privacy and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged … law in the context of an assertion of qualified immunity.”

Killian v. Hill

32 Ark. App. 25 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 19, 1990

He testified that their ability as to accuracy was “very good” and that “they are just as qualified as the vast majority of people working on field crews in the State of Arkansas.” … Those code sections provide for the registration of “land surveyors-in-training” and establish penalties for violations of the Act. Appellant correctly notes that licensing statutes must be strictly construed.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 26, 1990

The established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. … The court thus held that she was clearly ineligible to serve on the school board. At issue in the Cummings case was not a dual residence.

Goodrum v. Merchants & Planters Bank

102 Ark. 326 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 8, 1912

Bricker, 34 Neb. 516 , the court says: “In order to establish the offense of compounding a felony, it must appear that there was an agreement not to prosecute the case or to suppress evidence tending to prove it. … At that time no mention was made of any immunity to Goodrum from prosecution.

Daniel Bahner v. Susan Wakefield and Kelli Larue

2026 Ark. App. 146 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 4, 2026

A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. … Contrary to Bahner’s argument, however, Simmons does not require reversal because it also involved a termination of guardianship rather than the establishment of one.

Arkansas Department of Commerce, Division of Workforce Services v. Legal Aid of Arkansas

2022 Ark. 130 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 9, 2022

DWS contends that Woosley, supra, is distinguishable because several Arkansas statutes establish its authority to investigate and enforce suspected criminal activity. … League of Women Voters of Arkansas, 2022 Ark. 32, at 16, 639 S.W.3d 319, 327, sovereign immunity bars this FOIA action against the Division of Workforce Services, a state agency. Ark. Const. art. 5, § 20.

Gibson Appliance Co. v. Nationwide Insurance

341 Ark. 536 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 2000

Whether the jury’s verdict was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … that the trial court should have granted its motion for directed verdict, and presently its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, is Nationwide’s alleged failure to prove either the existence of a defect and establish

Calvin v. Randall

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 21, 2022

Perhaps the key difference is that the qualified-immunity inquiry requires proof of notice of a pattern of violations of clearly established constitutional rights. Krigbaum, 808 F.3d at 340. … Once a plaintiff reaches the liability phase, the qualified immunity defense must have either been defeated or not raised, so the clearly-established element is no longer at issue.