Case law

Bailey

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 14, 2026

Officers are typically immune from suit unless they violate a plaintiff’s clearly established rights. See Kelsay v. Ernst, 933 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir. 2019). … As provided above, officers are immune from suit unless they violate a clearly established right, and there is no established authority for the proposition that an officer automatically seizes a person by taking possession

McILLWAIN v. Weaver

686 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 22, 2010

Even if Deputy Traw’s participation violated Plaintiffs right to privacy, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Separate Defendants Weaver, Woods, and Roberts may be entitled to qualified immunity, but there are so many facts in dispute at this point that it is not possible to rule on this issue.

Ferrell

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 10, 2026

Qualified immunity shields officers from suits against them in their individual capacities when their conduct does not violate a clearly-established constitutional right. Kelsay v. … Even if Pigue’s reliance on the warrant was unreasonable, qualified immunity still applies because Ferrell does not point to any clearly established law that would have put Pigue on notice that the warrant displayed on his

Chenault v. Williams

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 29, 2025

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. … The Court notes that Plaintiff has not come forward with precedent establishing qualified immunity as to this claim would not be appropriate. 3.

Ross v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 4, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The Court is not aware of clearly established precedent finding a violation of protected rights under these circumstances. Consequently, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this point.

Carfagno v. Harris

470 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 10, 1979

They have a common interest with the unnamed members of the class and they are prosecuting this interest through qualified counsel. … Thus, I find that the requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied and that this action qualifies as a class action. I find the questions of mootness, judicial immunity, exhaustion, and abstention to be meritless.

Jones v. Singer Career Systems

584 F. Supp. 1253 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 26, 1984

Jones brought in an attempt to establish entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits. … Indeed, Butz clearly recognized the folly in assuming that state officials should be accorded a lesser degree of immunity (relative to their federal counterparts) simply because they act on behalf of the state, rather than

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Plumlee

745 F. Supp. 1462 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 7, 1990

The United States has sovereign immunity and, consequently, can be sued only to the extent it has consented to be sued, and only in the manner established by law. United States v. … Plumlee asserts as a setoff is clearly permissive, not compulsory. Consequently, RTC has not waived sovereign immunity by filing suit against Mr. Plumlee on the promissory notes.

Thornsberry v. Kelly

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 29, 2024

But, in the Court’s view, the PFR should have more directly addressed one particular portion of the relevant qualified-immunity analysis. … For purposes of qualified immunity, then, the Court concludes that, by May 3, 2021, it was clearly established that a correctional officer violated the First Amendment if, as retaliation for the filing of a grievance, the

Webb

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 20, 2026

Qualified Immunity The motion to dismiss Webb’s claims against the quorum court members based on qualified immunity is denied. … To overcome qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, Webb must allege (1) that the defendants violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Ross v. Helena-West Helena Arkansas, City of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 30, 2020

were not clearly established at the time.” … Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “the plaintiff must demonstrate the law was clearly established.” Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2007).

Thompson v. Ecological Science Corp.

295 F. Supp. 1307 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 6, 1969

Thus, federal subject matter jurisdiction is established. … Therefore, defendant is subject to service of process herein in Arkansas, although it is not qualified to do business in Arkansas.”

Gregory v. Lucas

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 20, 2025

In any event—and at the absolute least—it was not clearly established that Defendants had the responsibility Plaintiff contends. … > To the extent qualified immunity were not an issue, Defendants would be entitled to summary judgment in their favor—because their specific conduct was not unlawful.

Dove v. Bumpers

364 F. Supp. 407 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 17, 1973

It is clearly established by the evidence that a substantial majority of the funds which were spent by the City, or under the City’s supervision, were spent in areas occupied by the minority race in Pine Bluff. … This argument was clearly rejected by the Supreme Court in Whitcomb v.

Roos v. Clark

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 13, 2022

Redmann,2 for his position that the Eighth Circuit recognizes outdoor recreation as a clearly established constitutional right. Not quite. … Summary judgment is denied as to Roos’ remaining claims because Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on those claims and material issues of fact remain for trial.

Dorothy J. v. Little Rock School District

794 F. Supp. 1405 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 28, 1992

Qualified immunity exists where the defendants’ actions do not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … In determining whether the law involved was clearly established, the court examines the law as it was at the time of the defendants’ actions.

Griffin v. Webb

653 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 3, 2009

Griffin’s § 1983 claim against Webb in her individual capacity survives qualified immunity analysis. … Griffin alleges that Webb violated her right to be free from discrimination based on her gender or pregnancy, a right that was clearly established at the time of Webb’s alleged violation. See Lang v.

Saracini v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

431 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 12, 1977

She must also establish that she applied for a job for which she was qualified, that she was rejected despite her qualifications, and that the position which she sought remained open after her rejection, with the employer … It is clear, however, that higher level jobs, such as the one involved here, 6 are not immune from analysis under Title VII and the standards announced in Rowe. Rogers v.

Polk

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 27, 2026

Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s personal capacity claims based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of his clearly established rights. (Doc. … 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.

Shelton

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

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for civil damages when his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … statutory right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.