The law of the Danes; Dane-law or Dane-iage. Spelman.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Court Cases
Holt v. Sarver (1970)These eight class actions have been brought by inmates of the Cummins Farm Unit of the Arkansas State Penitentiary System and the Tucker Intermediate Reformatory which is a part of that System against the members of the Arkansas State Board of Corrections and the State Commissioner of Corrections who administer the system. Plaintiffs contend on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other inmates and on behalf of other persons who may in the future be confined at Cummins or at Tucker that the [...]
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: PB-69-C-24, 25, 29, 71, 75, 76, 80 and 91
Finney v. Hutto (1976)These consolidated cases are now before the court pursuant to the mandate of the Court of Appeals in Finney v. Arkansas Board of Correction, 505 F.2d 194 (8th Cir. 1974), reversing the decision of this court in Holt v. Hutto, 363 F.Supp. 194 (E.D.Ark.1973), and remanding the litigation for further proceedings. The remand requires the court to inquire again into the federal constitutionality of practices and conditions existing and prevailing in the principal penal institutions administered [...]
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: PB-69-C-24
Pollard v. Roberts (1968)
This suit in equity, which has been heard by a statutory court of three judges, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2281 and 2284, presents the question of whether the Arkansas statute which confers the subpoena power on Arkansas prosecuting attorneys violates the Constitution of the United States.
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: LR-67-C-143
This case was tried to the Court on its merits on February 8, 9 and 10, 1971. At the conclusion of the trial, the case was argued orally by the attorneys. The parties were then given until February 16, 1971, within which to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon receipt thereof the case was taken under submission by the Court. This opinion will constitute the Court's fifth and final memorandum in this case.
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: LR-70-C-203
Hamilton v. Love (1971)
Five inmates of the Pulaski County, Arkansas, jail filed the complaint in this action, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, on September 30, 1970, naming Monroe Love, the Sheriff of Pulaski County, O. A. Allen, Superintendent of the Pulaski County jail, and Frank Mackey, the Pulaski County Judge, as defendants.
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: LR-70-C-201
Talley v. Stephens (1965)This is a suit in equity brought by three inmates of the Arkansas State Penitentiary, namely Winston Talley, William Warren Hash, and Vernon Sloan, against Dan D. Stephens, Superintendent of that institution, for the purpose of restraining respondent from continuing certain prison practices which petitioners claim are violative of rights secured to them by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Federal subject matter jurisdiction is to be found in 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: PB-65-C-33
Grigsby v. Mabry (1983)
William R. Wilson, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., Patrick T. Seaver, Los Angeles, Cal., Reed E. Hundt, Michael Chertoff, Washington, D.C., John Charles Boger, New York City, Sandra T. Berry, Little Rock, Ark., for petitioners.
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: PB-C-78-32, PB-C-81-2 and PB-C-80-429
Holt v. Sarver (1969)The several petitioners in subject cases are inmates of the Cummins Farm Unit of the Arkansas State Penitentiary located in Lincoln County, Arkansas, some miles south of the City of Pine Bluff and near the towns of Grady, Gould, and Dumas. Petitioners complain that those in charge of the Farm are depriving them of rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, is not questioned and [...]
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: PB-69-C-24, 69-C-25 and 69-C-29
Warner v. United States (1996)Before the Court is defendant Troy Lee Warner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, filed on March 21, 1996. Defendant is currently incarcerated at the federal correctional institution at Elgin Air Force Base, Florida. The Court reviewed Warner's motion and ordered the Government to respond, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Rule 4(b), and the Government filed its response on April 15, 1996. This motion is thus ripe for disposition.
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: LR-C-96-220, LR-CR-88-84
Fairchild v. Lockhart (1989)Petitioner Barry Lee Fairchild was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal, Fairchild v. State, 284 Ark. 289, 681 S.W.2d 380 (1984) cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1111, 105 S.Ct. 2346, 85 L.Ed.2d 862 (1985), and denied Mr. Fairchild substantive relief on his petition for post-conviction relief. Fairchild v. State, 286 Ark. 191, 690 S.W.2d 355 (1985). Petitioner then sought relief via petition for habeas corpus [...]
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: PB-C-85-282
On January 13, 1972, the defendants filed with the Court the new environmental impact statement and simultaneously filed a motion for summary judgment in which they have asked the Court to dissolve and set aside the injunction. The plaintiffs thereupon filed a comprehensive brief in opposition to the defendants' motion, contending, among other things, that there were genuine issues of fact yet to be disposed of. Plaintiffs first contended that defendants' new EIS was "not impartial and [...]
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: LR-70-C-203
Smith v. Clinton (1988)
William L. Robinson, Frank R. Parker, Robert B. McDuff, Samuel Issacharoff, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, D.C., Ben Thomas Cole, II, East Arkansas Legal Services, West Memphis, Ark., Reginald Robertson, East Arkansas Legal Services, Helena, Ark., Victor Hill, East Arkansas Legal Services, Blytheville, Ark. (John Walker and Lazar M. Palnick, Little Rock, Ark., of counsel) for plaintiffs.
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: Civ. A. No. LR-C-88-29
Phillips v. Riverside, Inc. (1992)This case involves the alleged failure to give proper notice to an employee of his rights to elect continuation of coverage under a group health care plan after termination of his employment. Plaintiff Jerry Phillips claims that the failure to give such notice violated certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) that are popularly known by the acronym "COBRA." See Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Pub.L. 99-272, Title X, § 10002, [...]
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: LR-C-91-537
Holt v. Hutto (1973)These 34 individual and class actions have been brought by Arkansas convicts against the members of the Arkansas State Board of Correction, Terrell Don Hutto, the Arkansas Commissioner of Correction who administers the prisons within the jurisdiction of the Arkansas Department of Correction, and certain lesser prison officials. Petitioners are inmates of the Cummins Unit of the Department which is located in Lincoln County, Arkansas, and of the Tucker Intermediate Reformatory located in [...]
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: PB-69-C-24 and 33 related cases
This is a products liability case in which the plaintiff, an injured factory worker, recovered a jury verdict of $50,000 against the defendant, the manufacturer of the machine which plaintiff was operating or about to operate when she received her injury. Federal diversity jurisdiction is established; the governing law is that of Arkansas, the State wherein the accident occurred. The cause is now before the Court on alternative post-trial motions filed by the defendant. Defendant seeks [...]
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: B-70-C-9
Campbell v. Price (1998)
Before the Court are Judy Campbell's and Ricky Price's Motions for Summary Judgment. The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and is ready to rule on the pending motions. For the reasons stated herein, the Court will deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and will grant defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: LR-C-97-850
Aaron v. Cooper (1956)
The pleadings and evidence, along with the arguments and contentions of the attorneys, have been fully considered, and the court now files this opinion in lieu of formal findings of fact and conclusions of law, and incorporates herein as a part hereof the findings of fact and conclusions of law as provided by Rule 52(a), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A.
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: Civ. A. No. 3113
Before the Court is defendant Associated Milk Producers, Inc.'s ("AMPI") Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Plaintiff's Experts and defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties have thoroughly briefed this issue. Furthermore, the Court held a hearing on the issue January 7-13, 1998, at which many of the experts for the parties testified. This testimony supplemented the summary judgment submissions previously filed. Thereafter, on January 29, 1998, the Court heard the oral [...]
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: B-C-96-50
The Pleadings. The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology and the United States of America on March 4, 1980 filed separate suits against the Vertac Chemical Corporation and Hercules, Inc., both Delaware corporations, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The complaint filed by the United States is pursuant to Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6973, et seq., §§ 302(a), 402, 309(b) and (d) and 504 of [...]
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: LR-C-80-109, LR-C-80-110
Plaintiff Gregory Backus is an adult male who was graduated as a registered nurse (R.N.) and certified by the State of Arkansas to perform nursing services in May 1978. At the time of his graduation he was already training as a student nurse at the Baptist Medical Center Hospital in Little Rock, Arkansas, assigned to the obstetrics and gynecology department (OB-GYN) of the hospital as a student nurse.
Court: District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Docket: LR-C-79-445