Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In 1989, Appellee pled guilty to one count of first-degree sexual abuse. In 2013, Appellee filed a motion asking the circuit court to terminate his obligation to register as a sex offender. The circuit court granted the motion and denied the State’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. The State appealed, contending that the circuit court clearly erred in concluding that Appellee was not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others and therefore could be relieved of his obligation to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision terminating Appellee’s obligation to register as a sex offender, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in concluding that Appellee had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others. View "State v. Khabeer" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured while working for Employer. Following the accident, a drug test on Appellant came back positive. Appellant sought workers’ compensation benefits. An administrative law judge found that Appellant was entitled to benefits, concluding that he met his burden of proving that his accidental work incident was not substantially occasioned by the use of drugs. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, determining that Appellant did not rebut the presumption that his accident was substantially occasioned by his use of illegal drugs. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the Commission for a determination of benefits, holding that substantial evidence did not support the Commission’s finding that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. View "Prock v. Bull Shoals Boat Landing" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured at work and taken to the hospital, where he tested positive for marijuana. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission denied Appellant’s claim for benefits based on its finding that, after the accident, Appellant tested positive for illegal drugs and thatAppellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the accident was substantially occasioned by his drug use. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Commission’s decision, holding that substantial evidence did not support the finding that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption that his accident was not substantially occasioned by his use of illegal drugs. View "Edmisten v. Bull Shoals Landing" on Justia Law

On July 12, 2010, Appellant was hired as a patient-care tech by Employer. On January 11, 2012, Employer terminated Appellant’s employment for Appellant's failure to become certified within eighteen months of being hired. The Department of Workforce Services denied Appellant’s subsequent application for unemployment benefits, finding that Appellant was discharged for failure to become certified. The Board of Review upheld the Department’s denial of benefits, concluding that Appellant’s actions were a willful disregard of her employer’s interests, and therefore, Appellant was discharged for misconduct in connection with her work. After noting that Appellant was on track to receive her testing date in advance of the eighteen-month deadline but for Employer’s failure properly to complete her application for testing, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board could not have reasonably reached its conclusion that Appellant’s actions were misconduct where the required element of intent was so lacking. Remanded. View "Garrett v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs." on Justia Law

Appellant served as constable for a township in Greene County from 2008 to 2012. In 2011, Greene County set constable salaries at $25 per month. Appellant later submitted claims for reimbursement of expenses incurred while working as constable to Greene County. The County denied the claims. Appellant appealed the order denying his claims for expenses and also filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking to have the ordinance setting the salaries for constables declared arbitrary and capricious and therefore unconstitutional. The circuit court consolidated the actions, denied Appellant's claim for reimbursement of expenses, and found that the ordinance setting the salary for constables was constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's claim for expenses and that the Greene County ordinance setting constable salaries at $25 per month was not unconstitutional. View "Graves v. Greene County" on Justia Law

In 1991, the cities of Carlisle and Lonoke requested a writ of mandamus to require Lonoke County to pay one-half of the judicial and clerk salaries and a portion of the expenses of the municipal courts in those cities pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-17-115 ("the 1987 statute"). The circuit court granted the writ. In 2007, the 1987 statute was amended with an effective date of 2012. In 2012, the City of Lonoke and the Lonoke District Court ("the City") sought a writ directing the County to obey they 1991 order as it related to funding the Lonoke District Court, alleging that the 2012 statute allowed the County to ignore the 1991 order and reduce its obligation to pay its proportionate share of the expenses for the district court. The circuit court issued a writ of mandamus and awarded attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court properly issued a writ of mandamus ordering the County to abide by the 1991 order; and (2) the circuit court erred in awarding fees. View "Lonoke County v. City of Lonoke" on Justia Law

A circuit court affirmed an administrative decision from the Arkansas Department of Human Serices Office of Appeals and Hearings which placed Appellant Jose Marrufo on the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Central Registry. On appeal, Appellant raised two issues: (1) because the Department failed to timely conduct an administrative hearing within the statutory time frame (180 days), the proceedings against him should have been dismissed; and (2) the administrative law judge erred in failing to consider his affirmative defense to placement on the Registry. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Marrufo v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Employee was employer at Employer's aluminum-processing plant from 1957 to 1989. In 2009, Employee filed an occupational-disease claim for benefits with the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission, alleging that he suffered from cancer caused by his exposure to asbestos while working for Employer. A law judge found Employee's complaint was time barred. Rather than appeal the decision to the full Commission, Employee filed suit against Employer in circuit court. Employer filed a motion to dismiss based on the exclusive remedy afforded by the Workers' Compensation Act. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that, where a plaintiff's disease manifests after the statute of limitations has expired, a circuit court has authority to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims. The Supreme Court granted Employer's requested writ of prohibition, holding that the Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue in the first instance, and because Employee's claim was not submitted to the Commission, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case. View "Reynolds Metal Co. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a claim for benefits associated with an injury he received during his employment. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commissioned denied the claim based on a finding that Appellant tested positive for controlled substances after the injury and that he failed to rebut the statutory presumption that his injury was substantially occasioned by his drug use. Appellant appealed, arguing that the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the Commission lacked the authority to make credibility determinations contrary to those made by an ALJ. Currently before the Supreme Court was Defendant's motion to supplement the record with affidavits and depositions that Appellant attached to a brief he previously filed. The Supreme Court remanded to the Commission to settle the record to determine whether the documents were actually placed in the record. View "Prock v. Bull Shoals Boat Landing" on Justia Law

Appellant received an injury during his employment with Appellee. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission denied Appellant's claim for benefits based on a finding that Appellant tested positive for illegal drugs after the injury and that he failed to rebut the statutory presumption that his injury was substantially occasioned by his drug use. Appellant appealed, contending (1) the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the structure of the Commission was unconstitutional. Currently before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion to supplement the record. The Court remanded to the Commission to settle the record with regard to certain affidavits and depositions. View "Edmisten v. Bull Shoals Landing" on Justia Law