District Court, E.D. Arkansas — appointed by Richard Nixon
Jackson v. Norris
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2010-08-25 · cited 3×
The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Artie Jackson, who had been convicted in Arkansas state court of first-degree sexual abuse and second-degree sexual assault of his minor step-granddaughter based solely on her testimony. Jackson argued that the trial court improperly excluded evidence, under Arkansas's Rape Shield Statute, about the specific circumstances and conversation in which the victim first made her allegations—evidence he claimed would show her motive or bias to deflect blame after her mother discovered her own sexual activity. The state supreme court had affirmed the conviction, but the district court granted the writ, concluding that the exclusion violated Jackson's constitutional right to present a defense because the evidence was relevant to a fact in issue and its probative value outweighed any prejudice. The court reasoned that the rape shield statute's exception required balancing that had not been properly applied, and that the evidence was essential to challenging the victim's credibility and the origin of the charges.
criminal lawprocedure
Cheatham v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2010-05-20
This case was a products liability action in which plaintiff Charles Cheatham sued multiple defendants, including Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. (WKH), after his wife died following ingestion of Tramadol and other medications. WKH had supplied generalized drug information monographs to the pharmacy that filled the prescription to help satisfy Arkansas pharmacy counseling regulations. The court granted WKH's motion for summary judgment, holding that WKH owed no legal duty to warn or instruct the decedent. The core reasoning was that WKH had no direct relationship with the patient, provided only non-individualized information to the pharmacy rather than supplanting physician or pharmacist duties, and the learned intermediary doctrine applied under Arkansas law.
torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure
Giron v. City of Alexander
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2010-03-05 · cited 7×
The case involved multiple Hispanic plaintiffs who sued the City of Alexander, its police chief, and Officer Tommy Leath, claiming that Leath had engaged in racial profiling by issuing traffic citations to them and that one plaintiff was subjected to an unlawful seizure. The court held Officer Leath individually liable for violating the plaintiffs' equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983, found Chief Spears deliberately indifferent as a supervisor, imposed municipal liability on the City for permitting a custom of racial profiling, and ruled that one stop also violated the Fourth Amendment. The reasoning rested on direct witness testimony, statistical evidence of disproportionate stops of Hispanics, and findings that Leath used minor or pretextual violations as a cover while the City and chief failed to address known misconduct.
civil rights
Finley v. Astrue
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2009-02-25 · cited 1×
The case involved Amy Finley's appeal of the Social Security Administration's denial of mother's insurance benefits for herself and child's insurance benefits for her minor child, who was conceived through in vitro fertilization using frozen embryos after the death of her husband, Wade W. Finley, Jr. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's proposed findings and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court determined that under the Social Security Act, eligibility for benefits turns on whether the child would inherit under the intestate succession laws of the state where the insured was domiciled, here Arkansas. The Arkansas Supreme Court had answered a certified question by holding that the child was not a posthumous heir under Arkansas law, as the relevant statutes on legitimacy and conception were enacted before IVF technology and did not extend to this situation.
family lawfederal power
Van Horn v. Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2007-10-31 · cited 6×
Plaintiff Van Horn, injured in a 2006 California car accident, received medical payments from Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield (a FEHBA plan administrator) and later obtained settlements from the at-fault driver's insurer and his own underinsured motorist policy. He filed a state-court declaratory judgment action asserting that BCBS has no subrogation rights to those proceeds because he was not made whole. After removal, the court granted the motion to remand, holding that the reimbursement claim does not arise under federal law under Empire Healthchoice v. McVeigh and that federal-officer removal is unavailable because the plan contract gives the carrier discretion rather than subjecting it to direct federal control over subrogation decisions.
healthcarefederal powerprocedure
McMullin v. United States
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2007-10-22 · cited 4×
This case involved a medical malpractice claim brought by the parents of Garret McMullin, a child with congenital heart defects, against his pediatrician, Dr. Buxton, after the child died from complications of bacterial endocarditis. The court found that Dr. Buxton breached the applicable standard of care by failing to order laboratory tests, including a blood culture, during office visits on February 4 and 11, 2002, and by not directing the mother to bring the child in for evaluation after phone calls describing worsening symptoms. This breach was deemed the proximate cause of Garret's death on February 25, 2002, because timely diagnosis and treatment would have prevented the fatal infection and aneurysm. The court awarded $600,000 in loss-of-life damages to the estate and $1.7 million total in mental anguish damages to the parents. The ruling rested on expert testimony establishing both the local and national standards of care for a high-risk pediatric patient presenting with fever and the child's medical history.
torts & liabilityhealthcare