Case law

Mountain Pure, LLC v. Roberts

93 F. Supp. 3d 993 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 19, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197 , 1202-03 (8th Cir. 1999) (“[T]his generalized right to be free from an unreasonable use of excessive force during a police seizure does not clearly establish a right for purposes of a qualified-immunity

Aaron v. Shelley

696 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 29, 2009

was clearly established. … Neither summary judgment nor qualified immunity is appropriate. IV.

Glasper v. City of Hughes

269 F. Supp. 3d 875 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 28, 2017

No. 31, at 4), Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacity so long as the official has not violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.

Shipe v. Little Rock Waste Water Utility

620 F. Supp. 1498 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 18, 1985

This defense replaces the previously recognized subjective aspect of qualified immunity— whereby such immunity is not available if the official asserting the defense “took the action with malicious intention to cause a deprivation … That is not enough to demonstrate a clearly established right.” Id. at 406 (emphasis added).

Harrison v. Coffman

35 F. Supp. 2d 722 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 25, 1999

The qualified immunity issue asserted by defendants in their individual capacities is somewhat more difficult to decide. … This ruling is not, however, necessarily dispositive when the facts are more clearly developed, if a motion for summary judgment should be filed to avoid damages by asserting qualified immunity.

McIntosh v. White

676 F. Supp. 912 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 3, 1987

Creighton, supra, this reconsideration will be limited largely to the issue of qualified immunity pertaining to Defendants State Patrolmen Jerry Reinold and Barney Phillips. … Defendants Remold and Phillips are entitled to judgment on qualified immunity grounds in that they have established as a matter of law that a reasonable officer could have believed that the arrest comported with the Fourth

Hein v. Arkansas State University

972 F. Supp. 1175 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 30, 1997

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity in the discharge of discretionary duties when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Rather, the question addressed is narrowly confined to issues of qualified immunity and whether any such rights of the plaintiff were “clearly established” at the time of the University’s actions. In Vlandis v.

JOHN CHISM BAIL BONDS, INC. v. Pennington

656 F. Supp. 2d 929 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 31, 2009

are entitled to qualified immunity. … ; that they are not protected by sovereign immunity because they acted with malice; and that they are not protected by qualified immunity because it was deprived of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Smith v. Norris

877 F. Supp. 1296 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 23, 1995

The Court denies the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. 3. The Court grants Mr. … THE DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMS OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The hearing, which ended Friday, February 17, 1995, also dealt with the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity in connection with Mr.

Bankhead v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

264 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 7, 2003

the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is proper. 119 The qualified immunity defense fails if an official violates a clearly established right because … “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” 120 The Eighth Circuit has taken a broad view of what constitutes “clearly established law” for the purpose of qualified immunity, requiring

Osborne v. Howard

844 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 23, 1994

The test for qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Arn ott v. … However, [t]his does not mean ... that courts may always decide questions of qualified immunity on summary judgment.

Montgomery v. Newburn

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 25, 2020

To establish that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Montgomery’s individual capacity claims, Montgomery has the burden of demonstrating that: (1) the supported facts, viewed in the light … City of Litchfield, 689 F.3d 961, 965 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that qualified immunity “shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory

John Chism Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Pennington

656 F. Supp. 2d 929 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 31, 2009

are entitled to qualified immunity. … ; that they are not protected by sovereign immunity because they acted with malice; and that they are not protected by qualified immunity because it was deprived of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Perkins v. Cross

562 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 29, 1983

It fails to raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, which protects police officers who make an arrest in good faith and for probable cause. … The law is clear that the qualified immunity defense must be affirmatively pled, which was not done in this case. Gomez v.

Hayes v. Faulkner County, Ark.

285 F. Supp. 2d 1132 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 22, 2003

Hayes has established that Major Kelley violated his constitutional rights, 51 Major Kelley contends that he is protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official for conduct that does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 52 Thus, an official is not immune

Jones v. Hobbs

864 F. Supp. 2d 808 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 5, 2012

Qualified Immunity As the magistrate explained, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right which was “clearly established” at the time. … diet suiting his religious beliefs was not a clearly established right.

Morton v. City of Little Rock

728 F. Supp. 543 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 26, 1989

Furthermore, even under qualified immunity standards, the defense of qualified immunity turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in the light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” … It was clearly a violation of law for him to refuse to honor the subpoena, and it was equally clear that judicial officials are entitled to examine the expunged records.

Harvey v. Williams

680 F. Supp. 318 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 10, 1988

In their motion for summary judgment the defendants raise defenses based on the *320 Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if he violated no clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should have known. Harlow v.

Davis v. Fulton County, Ark.

884 F. Supp. 1245 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 28, 1995

s] were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.”); see also Pinder v. … Rather, since the legal basis for the potential genesis of this “right of protection” was well-established at the time plaintiffs § 1983 cause of action accrued, this alone is sufficient to defeat any claim of qualified immunity

Smith v. Cleburne County Hospital

667 F. Supp. 644 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 10, 1987

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: Defendants have argued, in their briefs, that this Court did not address the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, asserted by defendants, in its Opinion and Order of February 14, 1985. … On the other hand, plaintiff argues that while the Court did not make a specific finding that defendants had forfeited their qualified immunity, it is clear that such a finding was “expressly implicit in its findings that