provision violation in Arkansas

2022Oil & Gas Comm’n v. Hurd, 2018 Ark. 397, at 11 , 564 S.W.3d 248, 255 . 8 view.5 Likewise, this court has unanimously allowed inmates to pursue civil complaints against the State in the context of their incarceration.6 Nor does the provision bar claims against State officials who act illegally, unconstitutionally, or ultra vires.7 These actions are not truly against the State, but against rogue State officials whom the courts can enjoin.

2022Oil & Gas Comm’n v. Hurd, 2018 Ark. 397, at 11 , 564 S.W.3d 248, 255 . 8 view.5 Likewise, this court has unanimously allowed inmates to pursue civil complaints against the State in the context of their incarceration.6 Nor does the provision bar claims against State officials who act illegally, unconstitutionally, or ultra vires.7 These actions are not truly against the State, but against rogue State officials whom the courts can enjoin.

2022Oil & Gas Comm’n v. Hurd, 2018 Ark. 397, at 11 , 564 S.W.3d 248, 255 . 8 view.5 Likewise, this court has unanimously allowed inmates to pursue civil complaints against the State in the context of their incarceration.6 Nor does the provision bar claims against State officials who act illegally, unconstitutionally, or ultra vires.7 These actions are not truly against the State, but against rogue State officials whom the courts can enjoin.

2022Oil & Gas Comm’n v. Hurd, 2018 Ark. 397, at 11 , 564 S.W.3d 248, 255 . 8 view.5 Likewise, this court has unanimously allowed inmates to pursue civil complaints against the State in the context of their incarceration.6 Nor does the provision bar claims against State officials who act illegally, unconstitutionally, or ultra vires.7 These actions are not truly against the State, but against rogue State officials whom the courts can enjoin.

1962Self v. Taylor, 217 Ark. 953 , 235 S.W.2d 45 ; Local No. 802 v. Asimos, 216 Ark. 694 , 227 S.W.2d 154 ; Lion Oil Co. v. Marsh, 220 Ark. 678 , 249 S.W.2d 569 .

1962Self v. Taylor, 217 Ark. 953 , 235 S.W.2d 45 ; Local No. 802 v. Asimos, 216 Ark. 694 , 227 S.W.2d 154 ; Lion Oil Co. v. Marsh, 220 Ark. 678 , 249 S.W.2d 569 .

1962Self v. Taylor, 217 Ark. 953 , 235 S.W.2d 45 ; Local No. 802 v. Asimos, 216 Ark. 694 , 227 S.W.2d 154 ; Lion Oil Co. v. Marsh, 220 Ark. 678 , 249 S.W.2d 569 .

1962Self v. Taylor, 217 Ark. 953 , 235 S.W.2d 45 ; Local No. 802 v. Asimos, 216 Ark. 694 , 227 S.W.2d 154 ; Lion Oil Co. v. Marsh, 220 Ark. 678 , 249 S.W.2d 569 .

1962Self v. Taylor, 217 Ark. 953 , 235 S.W.2d 45 ; Local No. 802 v. Asimos, 216 Ark. 694 , 227 S.W.2d 154 ; Lion Oil Co. v. Marsh, 220 Ark. 678 , 249 S.W.2d 569 .

1962Self v. Taylor, 217 Ark. 953 , 235 S.W.2d 45 ; Local No. 802 v. Asimos, 216 Ark. 694 , 227 S.W.2d 154 ; Lion Oil Co. v. Marsh, 220 Ark. 678 , 249 S.W.2d 569 .

1957Co. v. Kendall, 225 Ark. 731 , 284 S. W. 2d 863 , “In similar circumstances the governing rule has been clearly announced by this Court in Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Meyer, 106 Ark. 91 , 152 S. W. 995 , where we said: ‘According to the weight of authority, where a policy of insurance does not itself contain a provision for waiver of the privilege, the introduction in evidence of certificate of death given by a physician of the insured does not waive the provisions of the statute against physicians testifying concerning information received in the course of professional employment . . .

1957Co. v. Kendall, 225 Ark. 731 , 284 S. W. 2d 863 , “In similar circumstances the governing rule has been clearly announced by this Court in Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Meyer, 106 Ark. 91 , 152 S. W. 995 , where we said: ‘According to the weight of authority, where a policy of insurance does not itself contain a provision for waiver of the privilege, the introduction in evidence of certificate of death given by a physician of the insured does not waive the provisions of the statute against physicians testifying concerning information received in the course of professional employment . . .

1992Jenkins v. State, 301 Ark. 20 , 781 S.W.2d 461 (1989) (jurisdiction lacking because no provision found in criminal procedure rule); City of Little Rock v. Tibbett, 301 Ark. 376 , 784 S.W.2d 163 (1990) (jurisdiction lacking because no provision in constitution or rule of criminal procedure).

1992Jenkins v. State, 301 Ark. 20 , 781 S.W.2d 461 (1989) (jurisdiction lacking because no provision found in criminal procedure rule); City of Little Rock v. Tibbett, 301 Ark. 376 , 784 S.W.2d 163 (1990) (jurisdiction lacking because no provision in constitution or rule of criminal procedure).

1992Jenkins v. State, 301 Ark. 20 , 781 S.W.2d 461 (1989) (jurisdiction lacking because no provision found in criminal procedure rule); City of Little Rock v. Tibbett, 301 Ark. 376 , 784 S.W.2d 163 (1990) (jurisdiction lacking because no provision in constitution or rule of criminal procedure).

1992Jenkins v. State, 301 Ark. 20 , 781 S.W.2d 461 (1989) (jurisdiction lacking because no provision found in criminal procedure rule); City of Little Rock v. Tibbett, 301 Ark. 376 , 784 S.W.2d 163 (1990) (jurisdiction lacking because no provision in constitution or rule of criminal procedure).

1970A contention to the contrary was laid to rest completely in Gipson v. Ingram, 215 Ark. 812 , 223 S. W. 2d 595 .

1970A contention to the contrary was laid to rest completely in Gipson v. Ingram, 215 Ark. 812 , 223 S. W. 2d 595 .

1966That the Union will furnish at the request of the contractor duly qualified workmen in the various classifications covered by this Agreement, in sufficient numbers as may be necessary to properly perform work contracted for by the contractor, in the manner and under the conditions specified in this Agreement.” Appellees argue that to demand signing of an agreement containing this provision is a violation of Amendment 34 and clearly within the prohibition contained in Kaiser v. Price-Fewell, Inc., 235 Ark. 296 , 359 S. W. 2d 449 .

1962Local 924 v. Goff-McNair Motor Co., 223 Ark. 30 , 264 S.W.2d 48 , this Court said: "On the other hand this court has held that the demand by a union that a collective bargaining agreement contain a provision in violation of Amendment 34 to the Constitution and Act 101 of 1947, coupled with picketing in an attempt to enforce such demand, is grounds for the issuance of an injunction *454 prohibiting such picketing.

1962Local 924 v. Goff-McNair Motor Co., 223 Ark. 30 , 264 S.W.2d 48 , this Court said: "On the other hand this court has held that the demand by a union that a collective bargaining agreement contain a provision in violation of Amendment 34 to the Constitution and Act 101 of 1947, coupled with picketing in an attempt to enforce such demand, is grounds for the issuance of an injunction *454 prohibiting such picketing.

1957Co. v. Kendall, 225 Ark. 731 , 284 S. W. 2d 863 , “In similar circumstances the governing rule has been clearly announced by this Court in Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Meyer, 106 Ark. 91 , 152 S. W. 995 , where we said: ‘According to the weight of authority, where a policy of insurance does not itself contain a provision for waiver of the privilege, the introduction in evidence of certificate of death given by a physician of the insured does not waive the provisions of the statute against physicians testifying concerning information received in the course of professional employment . . .

1957Co. v. Kendall, 225 Ark. 731 , 284 S. W. 2d 863 , “In similar circumstances the governing rule has been clearly announced by this Court in Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Meyer, 106 Ark. 91 , 152 S. W. 995 , where we said: ‘According to the weight of authority, where a policy of insurance does not itself contain a provision for waiver of the privilege, the introduction in evidence of certificate of death given by a physician of the insured does not waive the provisions of the statute against physicians testifying concerning information received in the course of professional employment . . .

1941The principles thus clearly laid down in these authorities constrain us to say that in the light of the facts of the present record the giving of instruction 35 was reversible error.” The appellee contends that the statement included in its instruction No. 4 was not reversible error, and cites and chiefly relies upon the case of Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. Campbell, 141 Ark. 25 , 216 S. W. 20 , where this court did not reverse the case because of a similar provision in an instruction.

1941The principles thus clearly laid down in these authorities constrain us to say that in the light of the facts of the present record the giving of instruction 35 was reversible error.” The appellee contends that the statement included in its instruction No. 4 was not reversible error, and cites and chiefly relies upon the case of Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. Campbell, 141 Ark. 25 , 216 S. W. 20 , where this court did not reverse the case because of a similar provision in an instruction.

1935Co., 284 U. S. 489 , 52 S. Ct. 230 .

1935Co., 284 U. S. 489 , 52 S. Ct. 230 .