Case law

Heslip v. Lobbs

554 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 7, 1982

Rather than pass on the defendants’ qualified immunity claim, the Supreme Court reshaped the contours of the qualified immunity standard, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. 3 In numerous cases, cited supra, courts … In essence, the qualified immunity defense attempts to accommodate these competing social goals. The Harlow opinion suggests that evolving standards for qualified immunity had rendered the defense negligible in effect.

Keesee v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 19, 2024

Burrows is also entitled to qualified immunity because his acts were authorized by a court order and thus did not violate Keesee’s clearly established statutory rights. See Frierson v. Goetz, 227 F. … Louis, 39 F.4th 494, 507 (8th Cir. 2022) (reversing denial of qualified immunity “because it is not clearly established that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not apply to § 1983 conspiracy claims”).

Brown

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

Ernst, 933 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir. 2019); Morgan, 920 F.3d at 523 (in determining whether an officer has qualified immunity, courts must answer whether the officer violated a clearly established right). … For all of these reasons, Brown did not violate Nelson’s clearly established rights.

Estate of De'Angelo Brown v. West

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

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2020) (examining when a right is clearly established for qualified immunity analysis). Moore, 514 F.3d at 760. … Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2020) (examining when a right is clearly established for qualified immunity analysis).

Johnson v. Wilfong

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 19, 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 … State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Although the defendant bears the burden of proof for this affirmative defense [of qualified immunity], the plaintiff must demonstrate that the law was clearly established

Walker v. Ryals

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 28, 2023

Because the above failure to protect law was clearly established prior to the May 2022 fight, I conclude Officer Huett and Corporal Barnat are not entitled to qualified immunity on this failure to protect claim. … And, because that law was clearly established before May 2022, I conclude Defendant Barnat is not entitled to qualified immunity on this excessive force claim. V.

Covert v. Kelley

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 27, 2023

were entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established). … The Eighth Circuit has described the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity as follows: Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit

Ginter v. Stallcup

641 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 11, 1986

Knox’s claims of qualified immunity. Ms. Ginter has not brought the Court’s attention to any clearly established law which movants’ conduct on June 3, 1983, violated. The claims against Mr. Blasingame and Mr. … Where the plaintiff can point to no clearly established law that the federal agents violated, they will be entitled to qualified immunity, as discussed above, regardless of their subjective state of mind.

Mountain Pure, LLC v. Roberts

27 F. Supp. 3d 962 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 13, 2014

Qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Weaver v. Clarke, 45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir.1995). … Even so, named defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs’ allegedly violated constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time.

Gordon v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas

168 F. Supp. 3d 1148 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 10, 2016

The individual defendants 7 contend they are enti- *1156 tied to qualified immunity from Gordon’s § 1983 and § 1985 claims 8 because the conduct alleged fails to state a violation of a clearly established federal right of … But the former UALR employees — Norwood and Peterson— are also entitled to qualified immunity if Gordon fails to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established.

Jones v. Clinton

858 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 21, 1994

In such cases, courts are required to determine whether the alleged actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … To decide whether an official is protected by qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the official’s action was objectively legally reasonable in the light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the

May v. Higgins

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 24, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials who acted in an objectively reasonable manner and shields them from liability when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, such that reasonable officials would not have known their actions were unlawful.

Edmond v. Winters

226 F. Supp. 3d 914 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 22, 2016

Qualified immunity insulates government officials from liability in their individual capacities so long as they have not violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Parrish v. … Even if the application of the Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act to Edmond violated the ex post facto clause, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at

Norfleet v. ARK. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants' actions do not violate "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Norfleet v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants’ actions do not violate “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hollowell v. Gravett

703 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 19, 1988

In the alternative, Givens claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity in that he was not violating clearly established law. In Imbler v. … a defense of qualified immunity.

Lewis v. Jones

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

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields officers from civil damage liability for discretionary acts when ‘[their] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … to qualified immunity (Dkt.

Lowry ex rel. Crow v. Watson Chapel School District

508 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 22, 2007

In ruling on qualified immunity, the threshold question is whether, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the defense, the facts alleged establish the violation of a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Because qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not merely immunity from damages, the issue must be resolved at the earliest stage possible. Id. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Lowry v. WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DIST.

508 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 22, 2007

In ruling on qualified immunity, the threshold question is whether, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the defense, the facts alleged establish the violation of a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Because qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not merely immunity from damages, the issue must be resolved at the earliest stage possible. Id. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Ratliff v. City of Shannon Hills

52 F. Supp. 3d 904 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 16, 2014

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 … Accordingly, Chief Hale and Officer Lucky are entitled to qualified immunity as to Ms. Ratliff’s § 1983 claims, and the Court need not determine whether Ms. Ratliffs constitutional rights were clearly established.