Katherine Lumpkin v. City of Little Rock

Eighth Circuit

Katherine Lumpkin v. City of Little Rock

608 F.2d 291, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11152

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 17, 1979

Docket79-1235

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 608 F.2d 291 (Katherine Lumpkin v. City of Little Rock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Katherine Lumpkin v. City of Little Rock, 608 F.2d 291, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11152 (8th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Katherine Lumpkin appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of her tort complaint against the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. *292 She contends that the District Court erred in holding that the municipality is immune from suit under Arkansas law. Her complaint in this diversity action states that she was severely burned in 1958 1 by the City’s negligent placement of “smudge pots” containing hot oil near her home. The City moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The District Court 2 issued a memorandum and order dismissing the complaint because, under Arkansas law 3 on the date of the injury, tort actions against cities were barred by the doctrine of municipal immunity. We affirm the District Court’s dismissal on the basis of its memorandum.

Lumpkin also challenges the constitutionality of the Arkansas sovereign immunity doctrine. We find no merit in the challenge.

The order of the District Court is affirmed.

1

. Plaintiff, who was three years old at the time of her injury, filed her complaint the day before her twenty-first birthday.

2

. Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division.

3

. The parties agreed that Arkansas law was applicable to the action.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Katherine Lumpkin appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of her tort complaint against the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. *292 She contends that the District Court erred in holding that the municipality is immune from suit under Arkansas law. Her complaint in this diversity action states that she was severely burned in 1958 1 by the City’s negligent placement of “smudge pots” containing hot oil near her home. The City moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The District Court 2 issued a memorandum and order dismissing the complaint because, under Arkansas law 3 on the date of the injury, tort actions against cities were barred by the doctrine of municipal immunity. We affirm the District Court’s dismissal on the basis of its memorandum.

Lumpkin also challenges the constitutionality of the Arkansas sovereign immunity doctrine. We find no merit in the challenge.

The order of the District Court is affirmed.

1

. Plaintiff, who was three years old at the time of her injury, filed her complaint the day before her twenty-first birthday.

2

. Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division.

3

. The parties agreed that Arkansas law was applicable to the action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 F.2d 291, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katherine-lumpkin-v-city-of-little-rock-ca8-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack