Case law

Morrow v. City of Jacksonville, Ark.

941 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 16, 1996

Of course, the qualified immunity issue is moot if the Court's holding in Part II-B is correct, that is, that the plaintiff does not qualify to bring an ADA claim. … However, if the Court is wrong and she is so qualified, then defendants Hibbs and Tate enjoy qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim predicated on an ADA violation.

Herndon v. Johnson

970 F. Supp. 703 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 17, 1997

Angelone, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 772 , 133 L.Ed.2d 724 (1996) (citing issues of statutory construction and state sovereignty to support conclusion that application of Acts not “clearly established” for purpose of qualified immunity … For example, in finding that the statute did not “clearly establish” that the ADA covers state prisons, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals pointed to the “broad, non-specific language” contained in the ADA.

Assaad-Faltas v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

708 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 1, 1989

Thus, even if the allegations of the complaint are taken as true, defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity from damages. … , sovereign immunity under the Arkansas Constitution and law, and qualified “good faith” immunity. (3) All defamation claims and breach of privacy claims are dismissed as true statements or privileged comments. (4) Claims

Bradley v. James

420 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 20, 2006

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Court then determines whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Stoner v. Arkansas Department of Correction

983 F. Supp. 2d 1074 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 18, 2013

Qualified Immunity A government official sued in his individual capacity may raise the defense of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects gov *1103 ernment officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Brazil v. Arkansas Board of Dental Examiners

593 F. Supp. 1354 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 6, 1984

To the extent that it or its members adhere to or advocate adherence to the statute and the regulations adopted thereunder, such activity would clearly be immune from liability under the Midcal rule: the restraint is “clearly … If the agency or municipality transgresses the bounds of its authority to establish trade restraints, Parker immunity will not attach. 6 . See also Town of Hallie v.

Adams v. Thompson

313 F. Supp. 265 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 22, 1970

It is clearly established that Negroes as a class and wage-earners as a class have not been fairly represented on the grand and petit juries selected for Phillips County during the period of time, 1960-68, relevant to this … Further, Judge Henley gave an analysis of the law with reference to comity between federal and state jurisprudence in considering the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens under the Constitution of the United States

Kapable Kids Learning Center, Inc. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

420 F. Supp. 2d 956 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 15, 2005

It is well established that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment’s procedural protection of property is a safeguard of the security interests that a person has already acquired in specific benefits.” Board of Regents v. … We find it entirely appropriate for the Plaintiffs to base their procedural due process claim on their clearly established right to have equal access to quality medical care as defined by § 1396a(a)(30)(A).

Boone v. Boozman

217 F. Supp. 2d 938 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 12, 2002

Because the immunization statute is a neutral law of general applicability, heightened scrutiny is not required even though compulsory immunization may burden plaintiffs right to free exercise. *954 It is well established … The immunization statute also provides for a medical exemption, for which Ashley Boone does not qualify. Ark.Code Ann. § 6-18-702(d)(1) & (3).

Culpepper v. Biggers

742 F. Supp. 528 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 14, 1990

Biggers would be entitled to dismissal based on a qualified good faith immunity defense. It was not clearly established at the time Ms. … Biggers’ execution of the affidavit was therefore objectively reasonable, and she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Bankers Trust Co. v. Worldwide Transportation Services Inc.

537 F. Supp. 1101 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 29, 1982

CONASUPO’s activities as outlined hereinabove clearly qualify as “commercial activity.” … The facts of this case, set forth herein-above, clearly establish that CONASUPO, via its agents Worldwide and Bankers, repeatedly and purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in this country.

Taylor v. Cochran

644 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 16, 1986

The “Personnel Policies and Employee Handbook,” in fact, clearly indicates, on Page Two, that it creates no contractual rights in the employee. … Defendant Cochran does not contend, nor could he, that he would be entitled to a qualified immunity had he indeed laid off the plaintiff on the basis of whom he supported or voted for in an election.

Gray

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

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment. … Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Steelman

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 29, 2026

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law. … A right is not clearly established if existing precedent does not place the constitutional question beyond debate.

Moore v. Gibson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 31, 2022

right is clearly established, and (3) raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … That right was clearly established at the time of Mr. Moore’s arrest.

Doen Ex Rel. Doe v. Barger

193 F. Supp. 2d 1112 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 25, 2002

Barger’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Extend Disclosure/Briefing Deadlines Barger has moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … The Court, however, is of the opinion that the resolution of the qualified immunity defense requires development of the *1119 facts in this case, and that plaintiff should be given the opportunity to conduct discovery in

National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. Bennett

178 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 8, 1959

. * * * ****** “* * * jf NAACP wants tax immunity, it should comply with the ordinance. It cannot have immunity from taxation without complying with the ordinance. … That definition is clearly broad enough to include the plaintiff and its local branches or chapters in Arkansas. . Bates v. City of Little Rock (Williams v.

Cowell v. Does

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 1, 2025

Regarding the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “[a] clearly established right is one that is ‘sufficiently clear [such] that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates … Ultimately, “[t]he dispositive question” for the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis “is whether the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of

Croston

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 9, 2026

Qualified immunity protects government officials from § 1983 liability for damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, does not establish a violation of a constitutional right; or (2) the constitutional right was not clearly

Woods

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 9, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them in their individual capacities based on qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.