John Dan Kemp

Name: Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v. Andrews
Author: John Dan Kemp

Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v… (2018)

Summary

“Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v. Andrews”, published in 2018, is a work by John Dan Kemp. It explores elements such as sovereign immunity, the Arkansas Constitution and the General Assembly.

Quotes from Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v… (John Dan Kemp)

John Dan Kemp, Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v… (2018)

“ Originally, in 1868, the Arkansas Constitution read, "The general assembly shall direct by law in what manner and in what courts suits may be brought by and against the state." Ark. Const. of 1868, art. 5, § 45. However, in 1874, the people passed what was the fifth and current version of the Arkansas Constitution. It altered the previous language and stated that " [t] he State of Arkansas shall never be made a defendant in any of her courts." Ark. Const. art. 5, § 20.
Subsequently, in 1935, this court considered the issue of whether the legislature could waive the State's sovereign immunity. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Dan Kemp, Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v… (2018)

“ An employee may bring an action for equitable and monetary relief against an employer, including the State of Arkansas or a political subdivision of the state, if the employer pays the employee less than the minimum wages, including overtime wages, to which the employee is entitled under or by virtue of this subchapter. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Dan Kemp, Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v… (2018)

“ The General Assembly does not have the power to override a constitutional provision. To the extent section 11-4-218 (e) directly contradicts the constitution, it must fail.
Third, under the doctrine of stare decisis, we cannot ignore six decades of this court's precedent prior to Staton. In Nelson Brothers, we stated,
The human element in legislatures and courts, following a natural impulse, abhors an injustice perpetrated without a forum in which the right denied or the wrong suffered may be asserted or redressed. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Dan Kemp, Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v… (2018)

“ However, when the issues on appeal do not involve factual questions but rather the application of a legal doctrine, we simply determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Dan Kemp, Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v… (2018)

“ Further, this court has held that suits subjecting the State to financial liability are barred by sovereign immunity and that plaintiffs like Andrews with these causes of actions have a "proper avenue for redress against State action, which is to file a claim with the Arkansas Claims Commission." Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis. v. Adams, 354 Ark. 21, 25, 117 S.W.3d 588, 591 (2003) ; see also Ark. Const. Art. 2, § 13 (stating that " [e] very person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs he may receive in his person, property or character") . ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Dan Kemp, Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v… (2018)

“ In Staton, this court held that because that sole taxpayer had complied with the statute, the State's sovereign immunity was waived as to her. Staton, 325 Ark. at 347, 942 S.W.2d at 806. In Tedder, this court reached a similar conclusion, holding that because the proposed class of taxpayers had not complied with section 26-18-507, only the named class representative could maintain a suit against the State. This court stated,
Our constitution generally prohibits suits against the state. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Dan Kemp, Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v… (2018)

“ III. Additional ArgumentsIII. Additional Arguments Andrews raises additional arguments that (1) article 2 trumps article 5, and thus the State must be answerable in court to claims at law for violations of the AMWA, and (2) any application of sovereign immunity has been waived.
We do not address these arguments. Here, the circuit court did not specifically rule on these issues in either its letter order or its final order. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Dan Kemp, Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v… (2018)

“ Rose v. Ark. State Plant Bd., 363 Ark. 281, 213 S.W.3d 607 (2005) . An act will be struck down only when there is a clear incompatibility between the act and the constitution. Id.
D. AnalysisD. Analysis The key question on appeal is whether there is a clear incompatibility between section 11-4-218 and article 5, section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution. We conclude that there is a clear incompatibility between section 11-4-218 (e) and our state constitution.
In the case at bar, the circuit court relied in its letter order on Jacoby v. Arkansas Department of Education, 331 Ark. ”

John Dan Kemp

Summary

Quotes from Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v… (John Dan Kemp)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature