charitable immunity in Arkansas

22 Arkansas opinions name it 3 courts 1973–2025 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
Williams v. Jefferson Hospital Ass'ngreen ark · 1969 · cited in 7 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1973–2008 2 sentences 2005See also Williams v. Jefferson Hospital Ass’n, 246 Ark. 1231 , 442 S.W.2d 243 (1969)(hospital as a charitable organization exempt from tort liability under the charitable-immunity doctrine). 2005See also Williams v. Jefferson Hospital Ass’n, 246 Ark. 1231 , 442 S.W.2d 243 (1969)(hospital as a charitable organization exempt from tort liability under the charitable-immunity doctrine).	3	7
Crossett Health Center v. Croswellgreen ark · 1953 · cited in 4 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1999–2008 2 sentences 2008In Crossett Health Center v. Croswell, 221 Ark. 874, 883 , 256 S.W.2d 548 , 552 37 (1953), this court made the point clearly and undisputedly that it was up to the jury to consider the factors militating for and against charitable status and to determine whether "the Medical Center was a trust involving dedication of its property to the public." Moreover, this court has made it clear that we give the doctrine of charitable immunity "a very narrow construction." Williams v. Jefferson Hosp. 2008In Crossett Health Center v. Croswell, 221 Ark. 874, 883 , 256 S.W.2d 548 , 552 37 (1953), this court made the point clearly and undisputedly that it was up to the jury to consider the factors militating for and against charitable status and to determine whether "the Medical Center was a trust involving dedication of its property to the public." Moreover, this court has made it clear that we give the doctrine of charitable immunity "a very narrow construction." Williams v. Jefferson Hosp.	2	4
Anglin v. Johnson Regional Medical Centergreen ark · 2008 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2018 2 sentences 2018Anglin , 375 Ark. at 23 , 289 S.W.3d at 37 (Brown, J., dissenting); George , 337 Ark. at 218 , 987 S.W.2d at 716 (Brown, J., dissenting). 2018Anglin , 375 Ark. at 23 , 289 S.W.3d at 37 (Brown, J., dissenting); George , 337 Ark. at 218 , 987 S.W.2d at 716 (Brown, J., dissenting).	2	2
George v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n, Inc.green ark · 1999 · cited in 4 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2018 2 sentences 2018Anglin , 375 Ark. at 23 , 289 S.W.3d at 37 (Brown, J., dissenting); George , 337 Ark. at 218 , 987 S.W.2d at 716 (Brown, J., dissenting). 2012As in the George [v. Jefferson Hospital Association, 387 Ark. 206 , 987 S.W.2d 710 (1999)] case, the lack of reliance on contributions and donations does not negate the Defendant’s entitlement to charitable immunity. [[Image here]] Plaintiff encourages the Court to overrule the charitable immunity doctrine.	1	4
Scamardo v. Jaggersgreen ark · 2004 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2007 2 sentences 2005In the instant case, Appellants argue “[t]hat test is met and exceeded by the calamity visited on Appellants by the trial court’s dutiful application of this Court’s recent pronouncements in Scamardo v. Jaggers, 356 Ark. 236 , 149 S.W.3d 311 (2004).” Specifically, Appellants’ claims against the Boy Scouts were first dismissed based on the circuit court’s understanding of the charitable-immunity doctrine. 2005In the instant case, Appellants argue “[t]hat test is met and exceeded by the calamity visited on Appellants by the trial court’s dutiful application of this Court’s recent pronouncements in Scamardo v. Jaggers, 356 Ark. 236 , 149 S.W.3d 311 (2004).” Specifically, Appellants’ claims against the Boy Scouts were first dismissed based on the circuit court’s understanding of the charitable-immunity doctrine.	1	2
Low v. Insurance Co. of North Americagreen ark · 2005 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019See Low , 364 Ark. 427 , 220 S.W.3d 670 . 2019See Low , 364 Ark. 427 , 220 S.W.3d 670 .	1	1
Downing v. Lawrence Hall Nursing Centergreen ark · 2010 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See Downing v. Lawrence Hall Nursing Ctr., 2010 Ark. 175 , at 12 n. 5, 369 S.W.3d 8 , 15 n. 5. 2012See Downing v. Lawrence Hall Nursing Ctr., 2010 Ark. 175 , at 12 n. 5, 369 S.W.3d 8 , 15 n. 5.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (20)

Case	Cited	Years
Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy of the Female Academy green ark · 1907 2 sentences 2001A.C.A. § 4-88-102 . 3 In George , the court listed the following cases in which the application of charitable immunity was at issue: The following are cases in which this court held charitable immunity applicable: Fordyce v. Woman's Christian National Library Association, 79 Ark. 550 (1906); Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy, 84 Ark. 497 (1907); Cabbiness v. City of North Little Rock, 228 Ark. 356 , 307 S.W.2d 529 (1957); Helton v. Sisters of Mercy of St. 1999The following are cases in which this court held charitable immunity applicable: Fordyce v. Woman’s Christian National Library Association, 79 Ark. 550 (1906); Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy, 84 Ark. 497 (1907); Cabbiness v. City of North Little Rock, 228 Ark. 356 , 307 S.W. 2d 529 (1957); Helton v. Sisters of Mercy of St.	4	1999–2005
Masterson v. Stambuck green ark · 1995 2 sentences 2019After conducting a de novo review and considering the charitable-immunity factors articulated in Masterson v. Stambuck , 321 Ark. 391 , 902 S.W.2d 803 (1995), the court of appeals concluded that reasonable persons could reach different conclusions based on the undisputed facts presented. 2019After conducting a de novo review and considering the charitable-immunity factors articulated in Masterson v. Stambuck , 321 Ark. 391 , 902 S.W.2d 803 (1995), the court of appeals concluded that reasonable persons could reach different conclusions based on the undisputed facts presented.	3	1997–2019
Grissom v. Hill green ark · 1856 2 sentences 2005Grissom v. Hill, 17 Ark. 483 (1856); Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy, 84 Ark. 497 , 106 S.W. 954 (1907). 2004Grissom v. Hill, 17 Ark. 483 (1856); Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy, 84 Ark. 497 (1907).The essence of the doctrine is that agencies, trusts, etc., created and maintained exclusively for charity may not have their assets diminished by execution in favor of one injured by acts of persons charged with duties under the agency or trust.	3	1999–2005
St. Bernard's Community Hospital Corporation D/B/A Crossridge Community Hospital v. Terry Cheney, in His Capacity as Special Administrator of the Estate of Sandra Cheney, Deceased; Charles King Bibby, M.D.; Wynne Medical Clinic, P.A.; James Donald Cathey, M.D.; Zachary Lloyd Stevenson, M.D.; And Elizabeth A. Ramsey, R.N. neutral arkctapp · 2021 2 sentences 2025Id. 2025Id.	2	2022–2025
Ouachita Wilderness Institute v. Mergen green ark · 1997 2 sentences 2018App. 523 , at 3, 508 S.W.3d 59 , 62, for the proposition that "[t]he essence of the charitable-immunity doctrine is that entities created and maintained exclusively for charity may not have their assets diminished by execution in favor of one injured by acts of persons charged with duties under the entity." Arkansas appellate courts have narrowly construed the doctrine, see Ouachita Wilderness Institute, Inc. v. Mergen , 329 Ark. 405 , 947 S.W.2d 780 (1997). 2018App. 523 , at 3, 508 S.W.3d 59 , 62, for the proposition that "[t]he essence of the charitable-immunity doctrine is that entities created and maintained exclusively for charity may not have their assets diminished by execution in favor of one injured by acts of persons charged with duties under the entity." Arkansas appellate courts have narrowly construed the doctrine, see Ouachita Wilderness Institute, Inc. v. Mergen , 329 Ark. 405 , 947 S.W.2d 780 (1997).	2	1999–2018
LeMay v. Trinity Lutheran Church green ark · 1970 2 sentences 2001Joseph's Hospital, 234 Ark. 76 , 351 S.W.2d 129 (1961); Williams v. Jefferson Hospital Association, Inc., 246 Ark. 1231 , 442 S.W.2d 243 (1969); LeMay v. Trinity Lutheran Church, 248 Ark. 119 , 450 S.W.2d 297 (1970). 2001Joseph's Hospital, 234 Ark. 76 , 351 S.W.2d 129 (1961); Williams v. Jefferson Hospital Association, Inc., 246 Ark. 1231 , 442 S.W.2d 243 (1969); LeMay v. Trinity Lutheran Church, 248 Ark. 119 , 450 S.W.2d 297 (1970).	2	1999–2001
Fordyce v. Woman's Christian National Library Ass'n green ark · 1906 2 sentences 2001A.C.A. § 4-88-102 . 3 In George , the court listed the following cases in which the application of charitable immunity was at issue: The following are cases in which this court held charitable immunity applicable: Fordyce v. Woman's Christian National Library Association, 79 Ark. 550 (1906); Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy, 84 Ark. 497 (1907); Cabbiness v. City of North Little Rock, 228 Ark. 356 , 307 S.W.2d 529 (1957); Helton v. Sisters of Mercy of St. 1999The following are cases in which this court held charitable immunity applicable: Fordyce v. Woman’s Christian National Library Association, 79 Ark. 550 (1906); Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy, 84 Ark. 497 (1907); Cabbiness v. City of North Little Rock, 228 Ark. 356 , 307 S.W. 2d 529 (1957); Helton v. Sisters of Mercy of St.	2	1999–2001
J. W. Resort, Inc. v. First American National Bank green arkctapp · 1981 2 sentences 2001Resort, Inc. v. First American National Bank, 3 Ark. 1999Resort, Inc. v. First American National Bank, 3 Ark.	2	1999–2001
Helton v. Sisters of Mercy of St. Joseph's Hospital green ark · 1961 2 sentences 2001Joseph's Hospital, 234 Ark. 76 , 351 S.W.2d 129 (1961); Williams v. Jefferson Hospital Association, Inc., 246 Ark. 1231 , 442 S.W.2d 243 (1969); LeMay v. Trinity Lutheran Church, 248 Ark. 119 , 450 S.W.2d 297 (1970). 2001Joseph's Hospital, 234 Ark. 76 , 351 S.W.2d 129 (1961); Williams v. Jefferson Hospital Association, Inc., 246 Ark. 1231 , 442 S.W.2d 243 (1969); LeMay v. Trinity Lutheran Church, 248 Ark. 119 , 450 S.W.2d 297 (1970).	2	1999–2001
Cabbiness v. City of North Little Rock green ark · 1957 2 sentences 2001A.C.A. § 4-88-102 . 3 In George , the court listed the following cases in which the application of charitable immunity was at issue: The following are cases in which this court held charitable immunity applicable: Fordyce v. Woman's Christian National Library Association, 79 Ark. 550 (1906); Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy, 84 Ark. 497 (1907); Cabbiness v. City of North Little Rock, 228 Ark. 356 , 307 S.W.2d 529 (1957); Helton v. Sisters of Mercy of St. 2001A.C.A. § 4-88-102 . 3 In George , the court listed the following cases in which the application of charitable immunity was at issue: The following are cases in which this court held charitable immunity applicable: Fordyce v. Woman's Christian National Library Association, 79 Ark. 550 (1906); Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy, 84 Ark. 497 (1907); Cabbiness v. City of North Little Rock, 228 Ark. 356 , 307 S.W.2d 529 (1957); Helton v. Sisters of Mercy of St.	2	1999–2001
Neal v. Davis Nursing Ass'n green arkctapp · 2015 1 sentence 2019Neal , 2015 Ark.	1	2019–2019
Progressive Eldercare Services-Saline, Inc. v. Cauffiel green arkctapp · 2016 1 sentence 2018App. 523 , at 3, 508 S.W.3d 59 , 62, for the proposition that "[t]he essence of the charitable-immunity doctrine is that entities created and maintained exclusively for charity may not have their assets diminished by execution in favor of one injured by acts of persons charged with duties under the entity." Arkansas appellate courts have narrowly construed the doctrine, see Ouachita Wilderness Institute, Inc. v. Mergen , 329 Ark. 405 , 947 S.W.2d 780 (1997).	1	2018–2018
Hogue v. the Housing Auth. of North Little Rock green ark · 1940 2 sentences 2018Although the HHA claims that the charitable-immunity issue was essentially decided by Hogue v. Housing Authority of North Little Rock , 201 Ark. 263 , 144 S.W.2d 49 (1940), Hogue did not extend the doctrine of charitable immunity to housing authorities. 2018Although the HHA claims that the charitable-immunity issue was essentially decided by Hogue v. Housing Authority of North Little Rock , 201 Ark. 263 , 144 S.W.2d 49 (1940), Hogue did not extend the doctrine of charitable immunity to housing authorities.	1	2018–2018
Progressive Eldercare Svcs.-Saline, Inc. v. Garrett neutral arkctapp · 2016 1 sentence 2016In this interlocutory appeal, Heartland contends it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law based on the doctrine of charitable immunity and that appellee Kevin Garrett, as attorney-in-fact his mother, Lottie Cite as 2016 Ark.	1	2016–2016
Arkansas Elder Outreach of Little Rock, Inc. v. Thompson green arkctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2013As we stated in Thompson, supra, we need not decide that issue because AEO has not proved that it is entitled to charitable immunity as a matter of law. 2012 Ark. 2013As we stated in Thompson, supra, we need not decide that issue because AEO has not proved that it is entitled to charitable immunity as a matter of law. 2012 Ark.	1	2013–2013
Watkins v. Arkansas Elder Outreach of Little Rock, Inc. green arkctapp · 2012 1 sentence 2013Watkins, 2012 Ark.	1	2013–2013
Seth v. St. Edward Mercy Medical Center green ark · 2009 2 sentences 2013Ctr., 375 Ark. 413 , 291 S.W.3d 179 (2009) (noting that the doctrine of charitable immunity provides charitable organizations with immunity both from liability and from suit and that the defense of charitable immunity was not waived by failure to plead it in the original answer). . 2013Ctr., 375 Ark. 413 , 291 S.W.3d 179 (2009) (noting that the doctrine of charitable immunity provides charitable organizations with immunity both from liability and from suit and that the defense of charitable immunity was not waived by failure to plead it in the original answer). .	1	2013–2013
Ark. Elder Outreach of Little Rock Inc. v. Nicholson green arkctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2013Nicholson claimed further that AEO, HC Financial, HC Staffing, and Spring Creek Limited Partnership (the owner of the nursing home) were engaged in a joint venture for profit and a civil conspiracy to use the doctrine of charitable immunity to avoid responsibility to Spring Creek’s residents. 3 Cite as 2013 Ark.	1	2013–2013
Pease v. Parsons green mass · 1930 2 sentences 1987The Massachusetts Supreme Court in Pease v. Parsons, 273 Mass. 111 , 173 N.E. 406 (1930), found the defendant trustee personally liable for the negligent management and control of property which was held in a charitable trust. 1987The Massachusetts Supreme Court in Pease v. Parsons, 273 Mass. 111 , 173 N.E. 406 (1930), found the defendant trustee personally liable for the negligent management and control of property which was held in a charitable trust.	1	1987–1987
Michael v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. neutral arwd · 1950 2 sentences 1987Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 92 F. Supp. 140 , 142 (1950) that trustees of a charitable institution are "personally answerable for their own torts." And in at least one other jurisdiction adhering to the doctrine of charitable immunity, trustees have been held liable for their personal misfeasance. 1987Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 92 F. Supp. 140 , 142 (1950) that trustees of a charitable institution are "personally answerable for their own torts." And in at least one other jurisdiction adhering to the doctrine of charitable immunity, trustees have been held liable for their personal misfeasance.	1	1987–1987

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 23-79-210 (6)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NJ 58 (1957–2026) VA 33 (1959–2021) MA 25 (1959–2026) AR 22 (1973–2025) GA 20 (1961–2019) TX 20 (1962–2015) SC 20 (1966–2025) MO 19 (1909–2025) PA 17 (1961–2012) NY 15 (1977–2025) MI 13 (1960–2024) NC 12 (1967–2020) WI 11 (1953–2005) LA 10 (1968–2002) IN 7 (1963–1983) IL 6 (1958–2007) MD 6 (1973–2001) ME 6 (1967–2010) OH 6 (1991–2005) OR 5 (1963–2020) CA 4 (1951–2006) RI 4 (1969–1994) ID 4 (1966–1990) WA 3 (1971–1975) CT 3 (1960–2016) KS 3 (1966–1991) MS 2 (1982–1988) AZ 2 (1963–1974) WV 2 (1965–1978) CO 2 (1966–1997) ND 2 (1965–1968)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check