Case law

McCoy v. Iverson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 11, 2024

But, beyond these vagaries, Defendants do not develop an argument with respect to the clearly-established prong of the qualified-immunity analysis. … The absence of an argument concerning the clearly-established prong of the qualified-immunity test does not appear to have been an oversight.

Martz v. Webb

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 30, 2019

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the defendant violated clearly established law … As for Defendants’ claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity, based on the cases previously cited in this section, the law was clearly established in May 2016 that refusing to allow an inmate to wash off pepper

International Paper Co. v. Clark County Circuit Court

375 Ark. 127 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 20, 2008

VanWagoner clearly states that it is the Commission that has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the facts that establish jurisdiction. … This court has stated that where encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Commission is clear, a writ of prohibition is clearly warranted. W. Waste Indus. v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 14, 2000

Const. art. 7 , § 24 (establishing prosecuting attorneys as judicial officers of the state). Question 2: If so, are they eligible as county employees or as state employees? … As just noted, assuming they are not independent contractors, in my opinion coordinators clearly qualify as state employees.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 22, 2006

At issue in your request is whether felled timber and wood chips hauled from a lumber yard constitute "unfinished and unprocessed" forest products, thus qualifying them for the exemption established in A.C.A. § 27-35-203 … Nothing is taken as intended that is not clearly expressed. State ex rel. Sargent v. Lewis, 335 Ark. 188 , 979 S.W.2d 894 (1998).

Lewis v. Hale

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 23, 2024

Qualified Immunity as to Individual Capacity Claim As to Mr. Lewis’ individual-capacity, excessive-force claim, Defendants assert qualified immunity. … 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 [in their

Waller v. Reed

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 1, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials who acted in an objectively reasonable manner and shields them from liability when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, do not establish a constitutional violation; or (2) the constitutional right was not clearly established

Floreal-Wooten v. Helder

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 16, 2023

Karas were deemed eligible to assert this defense, he would not be entitled to its protections under these facts and pursuant to clearly established law. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated a constitutional right and that right was clearly established. Williams v. Mannis, 889 F.3d 926, 931 (8th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted).

Jones v. State

31 Ark. App. 23 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 4, 1990

We hold that the trial court’s finding that appellant participated in the burglary is not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. … In the case at bar the State gave no reason for Harris’s absence and there is no contention that the trial court followed the procedure established by Goforth.

Jordan v. Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc.

64 Ark. App. 58 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 4, 1998

Moreover, the plans, which were admitted into evidence, do not clearly show how deep the excavation was required to be at the point in question. … In the instant case, Jordan’s own testimony establishes that the cause of the accident was an oncoming vehicle that he perceived to be in his lane and his actions in swerving or jerking his truck off the roadway.

Weems v. Anderson

257 Ark. 376 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 9, 1974

Article 7, Section 24, of the Arkansas Constitution provides for the election of a prosecuting attorney by qualified electors of each circuit and quite logically provides that the person, learned in law, who is elected shall … This constitutional provision clearly has no application to the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Ross v. Moore

30 Ark. App. 207 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 7, 1990

In this case, the appellee has totally failed to establish the statutory foundation which is a prerequisite to admission into evidence. … Cambiano testified that the blood tests were ordered by the county court and clearly National Paternity Laboratories did not qualify as a “representative of the lawyer.”

Kilgore v. Mullenax

520 S.W.3d 670 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 2017

The arbitrator established the following facts by a written opinion. … Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), is all but immune from judicial review.

Lafargue v. Waggoner

189 Ark. 757 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 8, 1934

He alleges that plaintiff is a resident of, and qualified elector in Arkansas County, and is and was at the time of the voting, qualified to hold the office of sheriff and collector. … It is never granted unless the inferior tribunal has clearly exceeded its authority, and the party applying for it has no other protection against the wrong that will be done by such usurpation.

First State Building & Loan Ass'n v. Arkansas Savings & Loan Association Board

261 Ark. 482 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 11, 1977

As the Rule clearly states, the Statement of the Case to appear in Appellant’s Brief is to be made without argument. … When we review the findings of The Board, we find the evidence to be clearly substantial.

Collins v. Lockhart

545 F. Supp. 83 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 28, 1982

Respondent’s initial pleading was filed before the Rose decision when case law clearly established that petitioner in this case had effectively exhausted his state court remedies. … The issue as to a death qualified jury was discussed in Part 5, supra.

Underwood v. White

27 Ark. 382 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 15, 1872

Underwood, county judge, as piembers of the Board of Equalization of real property for said county, to allow him to be sworn and qualified as a member thereof, and to sit and act with, and as a member of such board. … If, therefore, the appellee were the assessor of Phillips county, he was clearly entitled to the privileges sought by his petition ; and if his title to the office were undisputed, the proceedings in the court were proper

Foots v. Rose

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 13, 2018

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the defendant violated clearly established … established and neither Defendant Rose nor Defendant Early are entitled to qualified immunity.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 20, 2006

Accordingly, when the Court recommends the combination of two or more counties "for the election of a full-time judge to serve the courts so designated[,]" it clearly contemplates one judge serving the district court in each … Section 10 provides: The General Assembly shall have the power to establish jurisdiction of all courts and venue of all actions therein, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, and the power to establish judicial

Perry v. State

371 Ark. 170 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 4, 2007

Under § 5-1-110(b), an offense is a lesser-included offense if it: (1) “[i]s established by proof of the same or less than all of the elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged,” (2) “[c]onsists … Clearly, our reference to “against the victim” was not made with respect to a specific victim deliberately or purposefully killed, but generally referred to the person who died as a result of the defendant’s perpetration