Case law

Park v. Faubus

238 F. Supp. 62 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 3, 1965

Park, a citizen, resident, and qualified voter of Pulaski County, Arkansas, a county within the Second Congressional District of Arkansas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3) and 42 U.S. … In a similar case involving the Congressional Districts of Georgia, established pursuant to a 1931 Georgia Statute, the Supreme Court in Wesberry v.

Prunty v. Obregon

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 12, 2025

“Plaintiffs have not cited this Court to a case in which an arresting officer was denied qualified immunity in analogous circumstances, and this Court has found none.” Id. … Government officials are immune from suit unless they violate clearly established rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).

Brown v. Adams

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 6, 2022

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their positions … Conclusion The Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Brown has not established that his constitutional rights were violated.

Stompingbear v. Robinson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 29, 2022

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their positions … (2) if so, was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Scruggs v. Fitzhugh

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 27, 2024

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Qualified immunity involves the following two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at

Ellison v. BEST FOODS, a DIV. OF CPC INTERN.

598 F. Supp. 159 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 14, 1984

The Bank hoped to change this situation by hiring a more qualified individual instead of merely promoting from among the Bank's current employees someone less qualified. … Obviously, such a condition will not immunize the defendant from actions that stemmed from discriminatory conduct.

Thomas v. Culclager

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 13, 2023

The other question— unique to the qualified-immunity context—asks whether the applicable law was so “clearly established” that the government official is either a complete nincompoop or … And it’s clearly established that such seizures violate the First Amendment.209 Accordingly, Warden Culclager is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Harmon v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 7, 2025

immunity. … However, because the state of the law was not clearly established at the time of the search in Wilson, the Supreme Court held that the defendant officers in that case were entitled to qualified immunity.

Long v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 28, 2022

constitutional . . . right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’” 133 Under Supreme Court precedent, a right is clearly established when “‘[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently … Defendants do not point to any state-law grounds for qualified immunity. Instead, Defendants’ entire qualified immunity argument rests on federal law. Id. at 9– 11.

Daniels Ex Rel. Daniels v. Lutz

407 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 27, 2005

Lutz’s intent, either of which arguably might void the qualified privilege. See Hinson v. Holt, 776 So.2d 804, 810-11 (Aa.Civ.App.1998). … Rather, the testimony of a qualified medical professional would be required. 4 .

Williams v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 8, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their positions … if so, was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Burge

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 2, 2026

The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). II. … Consequently, Plaintiff has not established that he is a qualified individual with a disability. As a result, Plaintiff’s ADA claim fails. B.

Kellebrew v. Arkansas, State of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 25, 2024

Second, Agent McBroome moves to dismiss on sovereign immunity and qualified immunity grounds (Dkt. No. 14). … “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have

Coon v. Gober

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 18, 2019

Qualified Immunity Government officials are immune from suit unless they violate clearly established rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). … It is clearly established that jail officials must make showers available to detainees. See Kutrip v. City of St. Louis, 329 Fed. App’x 683, 685 (8th Cir. 2009).

Hamilton v. Love

328 F. Supp. 1182 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 2, 1971

Plaintiffs allege deprivations, under col- or of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities, secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. … The final decision may, indeed, rest with the qualified voters of the governmental unit involved.

Mysch

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 28, 2026

Officer Hutchins responds by arguing qualified immunity from § 1983 liability. … Officer Hutchins is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Mysch’s claim under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). For these same reasons, her retaliatory free-speech claim fails.

Lankford v. Plummerville Arkansas, City of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 15, 2021

Government officials, like Duvall, are entitled to qualified immunity for claims against them in their individual capacity “unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right … was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct.

Gardner v. Hecht

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 26, 2024

did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Because the Court finds that no constitutional violation occurred, Officer Hecht is entitled to qualified immunity, and the Court “need not undertake an analysis into whether the right in question was clearly established

Uncle Ben's, Inc. v. Crowell

482 F. Supp. 1149 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 17, 1980

Uncle Ben’s activities, when tested by the standards set by the Arkansas Supreme Court, clearly constitute “doing business” within the meaning of that phrase as used in the statute. … In a number of early cases the United States Supreme Court established the doctrine that a foreign corporation engaged solely in interstate commerce cannot be required to qualify to do business in any state in which it conducts

United States v. Allen

150 F. 152 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 30, 1906

As this count fails to show that he was an employé or that this money came lawfully into his possession by virtue of some employment, it is clearly bad. … The mere fact, that a person is an employé in one department of a common establishment does not make it embezzlement if he feloniously steals property under the control of another employé of the same establishment, unless