Case law

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.

Jones

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

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 … so, was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Roach v. Madden

728 F. Supp. 537 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 20, 1989

Second, *539 as an alternative contention, he alleged that his actions were such that a reasonable officer could have believed them lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information he possessed at the time … Thus, he maintained that he was entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Plaintiff responded to this motion on October 30, 1989.

Hill

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

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 91 at 24-27.) … Qualified immunity bars the recovery of monetary damages from government officials in their personal capacities if the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Lendall v. Cook

432 F. Supp. 971 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 27, 1977

The Act provides for scholarships for qualifying students attending “approved” public or private colleges in the state. § 80-3376. Students qualify on the basis of need and academic ability. § 80-3377. … Secular purpose The Act clearly has a secular purpose.

Kelsey v. Cobbs

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 4, 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 … , was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Dollar v. Adams

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

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 case “unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Adams has not established that he is entitled to qualified immunity or summary judgment on these claims.

Taylor v. Capital One Financial Corp

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

immunity because a Fourteenth Amendment right to informational privacy is not a clearly established constitutional right. … Because this purported right is still not clearly established, the individual defendants have qualified immunity. See Jackson v. Ramsey Cnty. Adult Det. Ctr., No. 21-CV-0929, 2022 WL 2374666, at *6 (D.

Barajas

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 16, 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. … Despite the tragic consequences, the defendants did not violate a clearly established due process right.

Eckstein v. Kirby

452 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 9, 1978

Duncan, 499 F.2d 963 (4th Cir. 1974), a claim for relief must allege that there has been a deprivation, under color of state law, of a “right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution . . .” … The limitations on this court’s authority are clearly expressed in the well established rule that federal courts do not render advisory opinions on matters that are abstract or hypothetical.

Leaphart v. Williamson

850 F. Supp. 2d 956 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 7, 2012

A jury could find that the Council went to a great deal of trouble to interfere with the Mayor’s effort to hire a qualified, older, black candidate. … Therefore, the Court declines to grant summary judgment on the basis of legislative immunity.

PARAGOULD CABLEVISION v. City of Paragould, Ark.

739 F. Supp. 1314 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 9, 1990

In such injunctive actions, the defendant(s) would be forced to rely on traditional antitrust analysis, rather than the Local Antitrust Act, to seek immunity or to establish other defenses. … Arkansas Board of Dental Examiners, “if the agency or municipality exceeds the bounds of its authority to establish trade restraint, Parker 1 immunity will not attach.” 593 F.Supp. 1354 , 1361 n. 5 (E.D.Ark.1984), aff'd,

Sutton v. Marianna School District A

573 F. Supp. 159 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 30, 1983

First it must be noted that, according to her own allegations, she lost her old position because of a reduction in force (RIF), clearly a reason, assuming the allegation is true, that could in no event be characterized as … The Court noted that: “Respondent here refers to no other right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal laws other than the Due Process Clause of ‘the Fourteenth Amendment simpliciter.”

Baptist v. Chandler

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 30, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damage actions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Mason v. Barker

977 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 18, 1997

The court noted later in its opinion that “[njeither the Supreme Court nor this court has announced a clearly established right of persons not in custody or incarcerated to recover for a substantive due process violation … Although they mention the issue, Defendants have not yet raised the defense of qualified immunity. Moreover, no questions of evidentiary sufficiency confront the Court at this stage.

Fritts v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 4, 2020

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge, though, that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law on that point is not clearly established and was not at the time of the alleged … The Magistrate Judge addressed qualified immunity, however, and this Court therefore gave both sides an opportunity to be heard on whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Meraz v. Gray

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

Qualified Immunity – Deliberate Indifference Claims Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. … 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

Handle v. City of Little Rock

772 F. Supp. 434 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 20, 1991

Defendant argues that the plaintiff has alleged no facts and cited no authority which demonstrate that Chief Caudell violated clearly established law and is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his individual capacity … on the basis of qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Williams

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

Qualified Immunity as to Individual Capacity Claim As to Mr. Johnson’s individual-capacity, excessive-force claim, Defendant Reddick asserts qualified immunity. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their positions] would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Wright v. Gibson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 30, 2022

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court considers: (1) whether the facts alleged by plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) if so, whether that … right was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.